Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CAERNARVON) BILL.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon the next Sitting Day.

MINISTRY OF HELATH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MOLD GAS AND WATER) BILL.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon the next Sitting Day.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

FACTORY WORKERS' STRIKE.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement upon the result of the investigation into the strike which continued for four days at a North West factory owing to the attitude of a foreman towards the workpeople?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I received a report of the Board of Investigation yesterday and am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the restrictive policy imposed on employment, agencies and the like, under the Essential Work Orders, it is proposed to continue the operation of these Orders after the cessation of hostilities?

Mr. Bevin: These Orders will cease to have effect at the end of the war unless Parliament otherwise determines. I cannot at this date attempt to forecast the policy which Parliament will be asked to approve in this connection.

PORT OF LONDON (ELECTRICIANS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that employers in the Port of London refuse to pay electrical trades union workers, transferred by them out of the port, the rates of pay they received in London or the rates in the district to which they are transferred, whichever may be the higher; and whether, as the provision of electrical machinery and fittings for both naval and mercantile vessels has become increasingly urgent, he will, if required, take additional powers to end the dead lock prevailing?

Mr. Bevin: No case has been brought to my notice in which employers in the Port of London are transferring electricians out of the Port otherwise than in accordance with the Port rules. My hon. Friend may, however, be referring to transfers made by my Department in accordance with legal powers.

MAN-POWER ORGANISATION (STAFF).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that nearly three years of war have elapsed since our organisation of man-power commenced, some of the staff who were engaged in this organisation can be trans ferred for national employment in other directions?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. With increasing stringency the difficulty and complexity of the task must also increase.

FACTORY INSPECTION, WEST RIDING.

Mr. Riley: asked the Minister of Labour how many factory inspectors are now being employed in the heavy woollen district of the West Riding; and whether he is aware of the complaints being made by operatives regarding sanitary arrangements in some factories?

Mr. Bevin: Factory inspectors' districts do not exactly correspond with heavy woollen areas and district staffs are assisted to some extent by inspectors from divisional offices. Excluding the latter, the district staffs concerned with heavy woollen areas in the West Riding total roughly seven. I am not personally aware of the complaints mentioned. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars, I will have inquiry made, but I would point out that while the responsibility rests on me to lay down standards as to


the sanitary conveniences required, the Factories Act places on the sanitary authority the responsibility for enforcing these provisions. It is only if the sanitary authority fails in its duty that the factory inspector has power to take action.

Mr. Riley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is an adequate number of inspectors?

Mr. Bevin: I am not satisfied with the total number of factory inspectors at all, but I am handicapped by the present war situation with regard to personnel. I feel that at a later date the numbers of factory inspectors will have to be overhauled.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the duty of local authorities to see that factories are in a satisfactory condition?.

Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

FACTORY LABOUR (EMBARGO).

Mr. Mack: asked the Minister of Labour why he has placed an embargo upon the supply of labour in a factory in the South; and whether that embargo is still in existence?

Mr. Bevin: This embargo was imposed on account of the apparently inefficient use of labour by the firm and is being maintained pending the result of an investigation which is being made by the Ministry of Supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

Shelters.

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will reconsider the claim for payment of grant for an air-raid shelter made by a company, particulars of which have been sent to him, as, although the shelter was not erected within the prescribed three months of the Civil Defence (Specified Areas) (No. 2) Order, this was due to evacuation and the consequent reduction in the staff; that they erected a shelter as soon as their employees approximated 50; and whether, in view of the financial difficulties of the company, he will take into account these special circumstances and decide in their favour?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am aware that the company provided an air-raid shelter as soon as their staff

totalled approximately 50 persons. It is, however, an indispensable precedent to the payment of grant that the shelter should be provided, or preparatory measures taken for its provision, within three months from the date of specification of the area in which it is situated, and I regret that I cannot authorise any departure from this rule.

Major Taylor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if this company had taken action earlier, it might have led to a great waste of public money and that the reason they did not take action earlier was not any fault of theirs?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of the last point, but the rule is there, and I do not think that I should depart from it, otherwise I should be in difficulties in a large number of other cases.

Major Taylor: Could not these cases be considered on their merits? Is not this red tape to the last degree?

Mr. Morrison: If the case were considered on its merit, the same answer would be given.

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Home Secretary how many applications he has received to date for Morrison shelters; how many have been granted; and whether the supply will keep pace with the demand?

Mr. Morrison: The responsibility for considering applications for indoor table shelters from the residents of areas in which such shelters have been made available, rests with the local authorities. Sufficient shelters to cover all approved applications have been allocated to the local authorities concerned and the supply so far has kept pace with the demand.

PERSONNEL (ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT).

Captain Gammans: asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to make a comprehensive statement on the part-time employment, on munition and other war work, of paid Civil Defence workers in their on-duty and off-duty periods?

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to make any statement about the better utilisation of the spare time available to Civil Defence workers; and


to what extent it has been possible to make arrangements for them to do part-time munition work?

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. On 14th April last I laid down general lines of policy in a circular, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friends a copy, and the time has not yet come to make any comprehensive progress report.

IDENTITY CARDS.

Dr. Little: asked the Home Secretary whether, since it is made obligatory on every inhabitant of the United Kingdom to possess an identity card, he will adopt such precautionary measures as will prevent anyone from a neutral country entering any part of the United Kingdom without a valid identity card?

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that all persons in Northern Ireland are required to be in possession of an identity document which must be produced, to the police on demand. As regards control of entry of persons from Eire into Northern Ireland I would refer him to my Reply to his Question on 14th May.

Dr. Little: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my own constituency at Newry Petty Sessions last week seven young airmen, one a deserter from the Eire Army, were charged with entering Northern Ireland without proper identity cards, and that in their evidence, according to the Press, they stated that they had purchased their identity cards from men at Dundalk. Does he consider the arrangements for crossing the border far too lax and a positive danger to the State?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I do not think that is suitable, and we do all we can to meet these points, but I do not think the hon. Member's proposal is a wise one. Last week he was asking me to relax the rule of entry to Ireland from Great Britain. He rather turns about from week to week in his security reasons.

Dr. Little: Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and I have pressed for freer travelling facilities between Britain and Northern Ireland, but I deny that I have ever done anything except ask for the strictest care to be exercised in allowing people to cross the border from neutral Eire into Northern Ireland.

Professor Savory: Why is it not possible to demand the production of an identity card from every citizen of Eire entering Northern Ireland?

Mr. Morrison: That would be a matter for the Northern Ireland Government.

Professor Savory: No, Sir, it is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman. Under the Northern Ireland Act, 1920, all entry into Northern Ireland depends on the Home Secretary of Great Britain.

Mr. Morrison: I will look into that point. Nevertheless, the Northern Ireland Government have a very efficient police organisation.

Professor Savory: It cannot control the entry of aliens into Northern Ireland.

DETAINEES.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that the work being performed by a detainee under Regulation 18B in Brixton Prison is not of a penal nature; on what grounds 3s. a week can be considered adequate remuneration for the work of a man who has been convicted of no offence; and for what reason such inadequate pay as 6d. a day is given to women detainees working in Holloway Prison, which rate of remuneration, allowing for board and lodging, is much less than that which can be earned by a domestic servant.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not think that any useful work which is voluntarily undertaken can properly be described as of a penal nature. Such work is rather an alleviation of the conditions of confinement. As regards remuneration, the cost to the public of accommodating, maintaining and guarding these people would exceed the value of their labour even if they worked with energy and application, and while it is right that some payment should be made as an inducement and a reward to those who choose to work, I do not think that the taxpayers in addition to providing for the maintenance and custody of persons detained under this Regulation could properly be expected to pay them wages at rates comparable with those earned by free workers who have to keep themselves.

Sir I. Albery: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the sewing of mail bags, which is usually work given to convicts, is not of a penal nature suitable for detainees convicted under 18B?

Mr. Morrison: That is peculiar to those who are in prison, but the work is not obligatory on detainees and cannot be of a penal nature, whatever it is.

Sir I. Albery: Where no other work is available and a man desires, as he should desire, to do some work, is it not in fact incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to provide it?

Mr. Morrison: Most of them do not wish to work, and the hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the position when he says mail bags are the only thing. It is peculiar to a small minority in prison.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman look sympathetically into what appears to be a differentiation between these people and internees, aliens and others? The latter are allowed to earn money, and these people apparently are not.

Mr. Morrison: The noble Lord is not aware that some of them are paid money. The circumstances are bound to be somewhat different, but there is no lack of sympathy with the points that he has raised.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Have they any opportunity of learning a trade?

Mr. Morrison: There is a Question on that point later.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Home Secretary whether any attempt is made to provide suitable work for detainees under Regulation 18B, male and female, who have special qualifications

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend is thinking of persons having scientific and professional qualifications, I regret that it is not practicable to provide work for which they are qualified, but as I explained in my reply on nth June to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey), various forms of suitable employment are available for those who are willing to undertake work.

Sir I. Albery: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of what he considers suitable work?

Mr. Morrison: I answered that previously.

Mr. Muff: Is my right hon. Friend aware that work is provided in most of our

prisons in the making of mattresses for women soldiers and hammocks for sailors, and can he extend the facilities to the friends of the hon. Gentleman opposite?

Mr. Morrison: The work would be available if they were willing to do it.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Home Secretary what facilities and encouragement are given to 18B detainees for educational study and learning trades, with a view to their becoming useful and contented citizens after their release?

Mr. Morrison: I have been anxious that everything possible shall be done to develop educational facilities for persons in detention, but experience has shown that if such schemes are to be successful it is better that the initiative should be with the internees themselves who claim that qualified lecturers and teachers can be found amongst their own number. Classes are held by those with the requisite qualifications, and a special hour has been set aside for classes and study. Books and other equipment are provided. As regards the teaching of trades, the number who could be relied on to take continuous instruction in any particular trade is not such as to justify the installation of expensive machinery or tools or the provision of special instructors, but for the women there are opportunities of instruction in dressmaking and in handicrafts including weaving.

Major Cazalet: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many individuals are now detained under Regulation 18B, at the latest convenient date?

Mr. Morrison: That does not seem to arise out of this Question.

LAID-UP MOTOR VEHICLES (IMMOBILISATION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary in which regions the scheme for the immobilisation of motor-cars, by the removal of parts, is in operation; whether he will give consideration to the petition, being organised in the Midlands by motorists, suggesting, as an alternative, an undertaking by owners to take the necessary action themselves; and whether he has considered achieving the desired object by calling in all tyres forthwith from laid up motor-cars?

Mr. H. Morrison: Private motor cars have been immobilised by the surrender of their vital parts to the police in a coastal belt in the Eastern Region and in the whole of the Northern, South Eastern and Midland Regions. In the Eastern and South Eastern Regions the scheme has been in operation since the autumn of 1940 and August, 1941, respectively. I shall, of course, be prepared to consider the petition referred to by my hon. Friend when received, but as at present advised I do not think that any method of immobilisation would be acceptable which leaves the re-commissioning of the car in the control of the owner. The question of the requisitioning of tyres is under active consideration by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, within whose sphere responsibility for such action would rest.

Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the petition referred to has been signed by a large number of people in Wolverhampton and district, and will he give that careful consideration?

Mr. Morrison: Anything from Wolverhampton will have my careful consideration.

DETAINEES' LETTERS TO MEMBERS.

Commander Bower: asked the Home Secretary why two letters dated 25th and 31st May, respectively, and addressed to the hon. Member for Cleveland by Mr. A. Leuthardt, a detainee at Camp M, Peel, Isle of Man, were stopped by the camp police?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have made inquiries and find that the question arising in this case was not whether the detainee should be allowed to write to my hon. and gallant Friend, but whether these two letters should be allowed as extra letters additional to the number which a detainee is normally allowed to write each week. The large number of letters written by some detainees—one man has sent 51 letters to Members of Parliament in the last three weeks—raised the question whether some limit ought not to be imposed, and the Camp Commandant took the view that having regard to the nature of these particular letters they ought not to be allowed as extra letters. I have now given instructions that no limit need be placed on the number of letters sent to

Members of Parliament, and I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend copies of the letters in question.

Commander Bower: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that on 18th November last the Prime Minister, in reply to a Question, gave an assurance to the House that detainees had the right of communicating with Members of Parliament, and that he regarded this as being sufficient to ensure that there was no abuse of the powers of my right hon. Friend under Regulation 18B? Surely communication with Members of Parliament must in all cases be unrestricted if it is to be any safeguard at all?

Mr. Speaker: That point comes in Question 46 on the Paper.

Commander Bower: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that letters addressed to Members of Parliament by detainees at Camp M, Peel, Isle of Man, are being stopped by the police in charge of the camp; and, as the free right of communicating with Members of Parliament is a safeguard for the detainees against any possible abuse of the power of detention, will he move for a Select Committee to inquire into the reasons for these letters being stopped?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Answer already given to-day to Question No. 18 by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. In view of the explanation given by my right hon. Friend and of the instructions now issued, no useful purpose would, in my view, be served by setting up a committee such as is suggested.

Commander Bower: Should not some form of inquiry be set up to find out why the police of this camp stop letters, in complete contradiction to the assurances given to this House by the Prime Minister on 18th November last? Surely, we ought to find out why that has happened. It is rather flouting the authority of this House.

Sir S. Cripps: My hon. and gallant Friend will have heard from the Home Secretary that he has already made inquiries into the matter, and he has given the reasons. If my hon. and gallant Friend were aware of the contents of some of these letters, and of statements made as to the dishonest method of the British,


and so on, he would no doubt feel that the matter had been properly inquired into and properly dealt with.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: May I say that anything which can be done to diminish the number of circular letters sent to Members of Parliament will be appreciated?

Mr. Muff: Would it not be simpler if the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) went to live in the Isle of Man?

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMING PROSECUTION.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information about the police raid on Chandos House, Buckingham Gate, on Saturday, 13th June, when Samuel Taylor and others were charged with using the premises as a betting house; how many people were on the premises at the time of the raid; and how many were of military age?

Mr. H. Morrison: Three of the 19 persons found on the premises were charged as principals and 16 as frequenters. Of the latter, 13 were bound over and the remaining three discharged. The three principals were remanded until 29th June. Five of the persons found on the premises were of military age.

Mr. Thorne: Is this the kind of job that helps our war effort?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH GIRLS IN LONDON (MAGISTRATE'S REMARKS).

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Home Secretary the number of Welsh girls who have been, respectively, charged before, and convicted by, the London metropolitan magistrates in the last 12 months, with comparative figures for English, Scottish and Northern Irish girls, respectively?

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that the figures for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks are not available. I should, however, like to take this opportunity of informing the House that the Metropolitan magistrate whose remarks have no doubt prompted this Question and whom I have

seen has assured me and has also stated publicly that he had no intention of reflecting on girls coming to London from Wales as distinct from other parts of the, United Kingdom. He was dealing with the case of a girl found stranded in London who had run away from a respectable home and in impressing upon the probation officer the importance of trying to get her back to her home the magistrate referred to the dangers to which she would be exposed if she remained friendless in London as illustrated by his experience of other cases. The girl with whom he was dealing happened to come from Wales, and if in the course of his remarks to the probation officer the magistrate gave the impression that girls found in such a plight in London are mainly or frequently Welsh girls he greatly regrets the use of words capable of creating such an impression. He had no such intention and is most distressed that he should have been betrayed into casual and ill-chosen expressions which misrepresent his real views.

Colonel Evans: While I am sure that all sections of the House will welcome the statement which my right hon. Friend has made, may I ask whether the House is to understand that it is quite clear that on Monday last, when these unfortunate observations were made, no official statistics were available on which such a statement could be made?

Mr. Morrison: That is so. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I had a very suitable conversation with the magistrate yesterday. He is not a magistrate who is accustomed to making rather wide observations, as I am bound to admit some magistrates are. He is very regretful, and in view of his attitude of complete withdrawal and regret, I think that my hon. Friends from Wales can feel satisfied.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no record of any girl from Northern Ireland getting into trouble in London?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether a full report on the causes and incidence of juvenile delinquency will be available in the near future; and to what extent juvenile de-


linquency continues to show an increase over the pre-war position?

Mr. H. Morrison: Compared with the total juvenile population the number of offenders is small, but as has been already stated there was a substantial rise in that number during the first two years of the war. Figures for the subsequent period from September, 1941, are not yet available. The increase is due mainly if not entirely to war conditions. Whether any further steps can profitably be taken at the present time for ascertaining with greater particularity the causes of the increase is a matter receiving attention, but I think the most important thing is to develop as vigorously as possible remedial measures, and this, as my hon. Friend knows, is the policy which the Home Office and Board of Education have been pursuing in consultation with the local education authorities and the voluntary organisations.

Mr. Sorensen: Will a full report on this aspect of war-time conditions be published in the near future?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot be sure. We are doing our best to investigate these cases and will do all we can, but my hon. Friend will realise that having regard to war conditions there are many other things that are a strain on Government Departments just now.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that there are no juvenile delinquents in Leyton?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEALS IN SCHOOLS (COST).

Miss Rathbone: asked the President of the Board of Education the average cost per head per meal of school dinners in elementary and secondary schools, respectively, including raw materials, staffing, fuel and other incidental expenses; and, if the full figures are not available, will he give the nearest available figures?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): The collection of statistics regarding the cost of school meals has been discontinued during the war. Costs vary considerably in both elementary and secondary schools according to the size of the canteens and other factors.

It is estimated that under normal conditions, the average inclusive cost of a school dinner of the type recommended in the Board's Circulars is approximately 8d.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the considerable agitation that is going on for the extension of school meals, can my right hon. Friend try to get as full figures as possible so that the public may have an idea of the cost really involved?

Mr. Butler: It is naturally important that we should have this information, but I am in some difficulty in getting accurate statistics. I will, however, do what I can.

Mr. Thorne: Has my right hon. Friend sent out a circular to local authorities about this matter, and, if so, can I get a copy?

Mr. Butter: The circulars are 1571 and 1584, and I will send copies to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — DAY NURSERIES.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he can make a statement on the policy that is to be followed in looking after the care of young children of mothers who have, or will, respond to the nation's need;
(2) the number of day nurseries now being used, the number to be opened, and give in the OFFICIAL REPORT the numbers in the chief centres in the country; and is he satisfied with the progress made in the provision of accommodation and service for the children;
(3) whether he is aware of the mothers' appreciation of the contribution to the war effort and the success of the day nurseries in Stoke-on-Trent; and will he see that provision is made for as many as are required in the area as soon as possible and that nothing shall be allowed to hold up the provision of the maximum number of nurseries required?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): The policy of the Government was indicated in the statements made in the House on 5th February and 5th March and in the circulars sent to local authorities, copies of which I will send to my hon. Friend. The number of day nurseries in operation at the end of May was 540, approved but not yet in operation


576 and in an earlier stage of preparation 216, making a total at all stages of 1,332. As indicated in the Reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) on 12th February it would not be in the public interest to publish the figures for individual districts but I will send a list to my hon. Friend. As the figures indicate, substantial progress has been made and I am well aware of the appreciation of the work which has been done at Stoke on this matter. So far as I am aware, development is restricted only by difficulties as to labour and materials which are inherent in present conditions.

Mr. Smith: As in view of our war needs the provision of these schools and homes is becoming one of -increasing urgency, could the Minister give an undertaking that he will expedite their provision and see that nothing but the best equipment will be put in them?

Mr. Brown: That has been my aim from the beginning. The moment the Ministry of Labour inform us of the needs of a particular area steps are taken to do our best to meet them.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY ACCIDENT, BARNSLEY (FUND).

Mr. Collindridge: asked the Minister of Health why he has refused to allow the Barnsley Corporation to make a grant of £500 to the Barnsley Main Colliery Explosion Fund for the purpose of relieving the distress of the dependants of those who lost their lives; and will he reconsider this decision?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which I gave to him on 21st May in regard to a similar application for sanction from another local authority.

Mr. Collindridge: Is the Minister aware that the widows and children of fatally injured men were the only people passed-over in the Act of 1940, and does not this fact make the ban which the right hon. Gentleman has imposed upon this contribution a very harsh one?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member looks at the other Answer, he will see that this is not a particular decision but a decision which carries out what has been settled

Government policy over a number of s years. Similar decisions have been given in regard to other appeals, such as the Red Cross and various Lord Mayors' Funds. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no lack of sympathy with the cause.

Mr. Collindridge: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency in 1937 a similar contribution was allowed to another explosion fund?

Mr. Brown: I am not aware of that. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me the information.

Mr. Collindridge: Much as I regret it, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the Reply I shall have to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HACKNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (SURCHARGE).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether he has any further statement to make in respect of the surcharge on the Hackney Borough Council; and can he state the details of the expenditure in connection with which the surcharge was made?

Mr. E. Brown: I hope to be in a position shortly to give my decision on the application for relief from the persons surcharged. The expenditure in question relates to the purchase in the first week of the war of 30 bottles of brandy, 36 bottles of whisky, 18 bottles of gin, 16 bottles of vermouth, 60 bottles of soda water, 120 pints of ale and 8 crates of ale.

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me who were asked to the party?

Mr. Brown: I do not think I ought to add anything to the Answer which I have given, seeing that I have to make a decision upon the surcharge.

Mr. Gallacher: Does not an authority which keeps such a useless luxury as a Press representative deserve to have a surcharge?

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) jealous because he was not asked to the party?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

LAUNDRY SERVICES.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the situation of many families, whom local laundries, owing to shortage of labour, are unable to accept as customers and whose soap ration is insufficient for washing clothes; and what steps is he taking to solve the difficulty in the interest of public health?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Replies given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service regarding laundry services on 10th April, 1941, of which I am sending him a copy. If he would care to send me information about any particular locality where there is marked difficulty I will look into it.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he will undertake that, before any more general practitioners are released for the Services, the Emergency Medical Service will be reduced to a size more comparable with proved needs?

Mr. E. Brown: As stated in a Reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) on 15th April, a percentage reduction in the whole-time medical staffs of hospitals, including those enrolled in the Emergency Medical Service, is already being carried out, in the light of the proved needs of the hospitals. In addition, the period for which hospital appointments may be held by recently qualified doctors liable to military service has been restricted. The reduction of hospital staffs is, therefore, proceeding concurrently with the call for more general practitioners for the Services.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. Pearson: asked the Minister of Health how many county councils in Wales have in operation after-care schemes of a satisfactory standard for tuberculosis sufferers; and are sufficiently energetic steps being taken to provide adequate after-care?

Mr. E. Brown: I am obtaining the latest information on this matter and will communicate it to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Pearson: Is not the Minister aware that a good deal of concern has been shown at the inadequacy of the after-care scheme in fighting this scourge?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, and I share it.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health, how many cases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis were notified last year; and how many were considered to be of bovine origin?

Mr. Brown: The number of cases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis, notified in England and Wales during the year 1941 was 13,720. The information referred to m the second part of the Question is not available.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the serious implications of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, is he co-operating with the Ministry of Food in order to ensure that all milk under the National Milk Scheme undergoes some form of purification before it is sold to the public?

Mr. Brown: There is another Question about that.

MILK (PASTEURISATION).

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the arrangement under which the National Milk Scheme guarantees a high standard of quality in milk which has passed through a depôt, but does not protect people served by a producer-retailer not in possession of a pasteurisation plant, or what further steps he proposes to take?

Mr. E. Brown: I welcome the increase in pasteurisation to which the arrangements in paragraph 6 (f) of the White Paper on Milk Policy should contribute. Its further extension must be limited by considerations of what is practicable.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any producer-retailer can sell milk from a tuberculous cow to an unsuspecting mother, and does he not think the public should be afforded some protection?

Mr. Brown: As I say, we do all we can, subject to the limitations of what is practicable. I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady's object.

Mr. Leach: Would it not be better, while being very strict about cleanliness, not to bother about the foolishness of pasteurisation?

Mr. David Adams: Will steps be taken to increase the amount of milk that is pasteurised?

HOSPITAL MEDICAL AND NURSING STAFFS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give any further information respecting progress in relating and co-ordinating the services of medical and nursing staffs in military and civil hospitals?

Mr. E. Brown: With regard to nursing, to which my hon. Friend's previous questions referred, I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has agreed in principle to the temporary loan to understaffed civilian hospitals of Army nurses who can be spared. The details are under discussion. With regard to medical staffs, I have a standing arrangement with my right hon. Friend under which Army doctors would give all possible assistance to a civil hospital if required in an emergency. I may add that Medical Personnel Priority Committees in each Region have constantly under review the co-ordination of military and civil hospital services.

Mr. Sorensen: While appreciating very much the Reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given, may I ask him whether any kind of report is likely to be made of a general nature showing what the progress has been, in view of the great shortage of civil staff in certain directions?

Mr. Brown: I am not certain about there being a report. I shall have to look into that point. The hon. Member will see that the medical personnel do have this matter constantly under discussion with all the Departments concerned, because this affects more than one Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED BUNGALOW, TAMWORTH.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Health when his senior regional officer, Birmingham, gave instructions for the requisition of No. 4 Bungalow, Fazeley Road; Tamworth; when was notice of requisition given to the tenant; when was forcible entry authorised by the regional officer and obtained; and whether he has approved the procedure in this case seeing that alternative accommodation was available?

Mr. E. Brown: The Answer to the first two parts of the Question is 28th April last and to the third part, 29th April. I am having full inquiries made into the circumstances of this requisitioning, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Captain Plugge: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases where British subjects formerly living abroad in what is now enemy-occupied territory have succeeded in bringing with them a certain proportion of the income which they earned in that country, this money is treated as earned income and is subject to Income Tax in this country?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The general rule is that a person resident in the United Kingdom is liable to Income Tax in respect of income arising abroad. The application of the rule depends on the facts of the particular case, and perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have the facts of any case he may have in mind.

Dr. Little: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of Northern Ireland, farmers whose Poor Law valuation does not exceed £100, assessed under Schedule B, the assessment for Income Tax under the present Budget, will be as hitherto on the Poor Law valuation, rent, or annuity payable to the Ministry of Finance, whichever is least?

Sir K. Wood: The present Finance Bill does not alter the provision under which the annual value of lands in Northern Ireland for the purposes of Schedule B is taken to be the Poor Law valuation or the purchase annuity payable under the Land Purchase Acts, whichever is the smaller. Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 28 of the Finance Bill, where a farmer is chargeable under Schedule B, the charge will be on three times the annual value.

SERVING CIVIL SERVANTS' PAY (REDUCTION IN RANK).

Mr. Cluse: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the recent article headed "Red Tape: Soldiers paid for Crime," a copy of which has been sent to him; and what steps he takes to ensure that if a civil


servant non-commissioned officer is reduced in rank, even for disciplinary reasons, he is not compensated by an increase in his civil pay by the amount he has lost from his military pay?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but the suggestion conveyed by the article that civil servants serving with the Forces receive unduly favourable treatment in this matter is not one which I can accept. When a civil servant thus serving is reduced in military, etc., rank for disciplinary reasons, Departments are instructed to consider what action would have been taken had a similar offence been committed by him whilst in Departmental employment. If the offence would have involved dismissal from the Civil Service, balance of civil pay is to be stopped; if the offence is rather less serious, balance of civil pay may be continued at the same rate as before without compensating for the reduction in military, etc., pay, or it may be otherwise adjusted at the Department's discretion. It is only when a civil servant is reduced in rank in circumstances which do not call for any downward adjustment of his total emoluments that the reduction in military, etc., pay is made good by an increase in balance of civil pay.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the resolutions passed at public meetings in Bowhill and Kelty on 31st May, and sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife, demanding old age pensions of 30s. per week at the age of 60 years and the abolition of the means test for old age pensioners; and what steps he is prepared to take to meet this demand.

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement made in the House yesterday.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any inquiry which he proposes to make into this question, or any proposal which he is considering, receive a statement from the representatives of the Old Age Pensioners' Association?

Sir K. Wood: I do not think I can take the matter further than I did in the statement which I made yesterday.

Mr. Gallacher: But the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that if any matters

concerning city companies were being considered, representations would be received from them, and surely we should get the same consideration for the representatives of the old folk as is given to the gang of robbers in the city?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (HOURS OF WORK).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the approximate average ordinary hours worked weekly by civil servants is about 44 or less, these hours could not be increased during the war, thus saving overtime pay and releasing surplus staff for war work.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): My hon. Friend must distinguish between the hours which civil servants work and the conditions on which they are paid. As he has frequently been informed, the hours have been heavily increased during the war, and the average working week of civil servants at the present time is 51 hours inclusive of mealtimes. In some Departments it is a good deal longer than 51 hours. Certain classes of lower-paid civil servants are entitled to overtime payment for hours in excess of 44 (or in some cases 42), but, as I said in reply to a similar Question on 17th March, the conditions under which payment is made for overtime are governed by awards of the Industrial Court or by agreements with the appropriate Staff Associations, and it would be contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government to vary such arrangements by unilateral action.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBING POLICY.

Commander Bower: asked the Prime Minister, having regard to the recent wide publicity by Press and screen accorded to the opinions on bombing policy of the Commander-in-Chief, Bomber Command, whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to afford similar facilities for the public expression of their views by operational commanders in other Services; and whether such free expression of opinion will be restricted to those holding commands-in-chief?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The publicity recently accorded


to the views of the Commander-in-Chief, Bomber Command, was directly connected with the exceptional operations carried out by the Forces under his command. I see no reason to fetter the discretion of responsible Ministers in this matter by any hard and fast rule, such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

Commander Bower: Is there not a danger that these pronouncements on the part of operational commanders may deceive some uninstructed portion of the public into believing that they are expressions of policy on behalf of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think so. I think the general public understands quite well.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider giving immediate warning to the German Government that, in future, a German undefended town or village will be obliterated by the Royal Air Force in retribution for every innocent person murdered by the Nazis in any occupied country?

Mr. Attlee: There would not be enough German villages to go round. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that our bombing effort against Germany will be directed at the most effective points.

Sir T. Moore: I cannot accept that answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter is of immediate urgency? He knows that a number of these people have been murdered, and of the immediate threat to thousands more. Does he also know that the ultimatum to Czechoslovakia expires to-day, by which thousands are threatened by murder unless they give up the killers of Heydrich? Will he not take immediate steps to make it known to the German Government that we shall exact an eye for an eye, and follow the Old Testament?

Mr. Attlee: We are not talking about an eye for an eye but a village for a village, which involves the question of the most effective use of the Royal Air Force.

Sir T. Moore: Admitted.

Mr. Attlee: No doubt the hon. and gallant Member will agree that it is not necessarily the most effective use of the Air Force to bomb a number of separate

villages. The policy of the Royal Air Force is to use the Force where it can be most effective.

Sir T. Moore: I quite understand that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWINTON COMMITTEE (CHAIRMANSHIP).

Commander King-Hall: asked the Prime Minister whether Lord Swinton will retain his chairmanship of the Swinton Committee?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. The Chairmanship will be taken over by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING LOSSES (PUBLICATION).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider his decision not to publish shipping losses; whether he will state the figures of Allied losses in recent months; and whether he is aware that statements on the subject are being circulated in the United States of America?

Mr. Attlee: The position is as stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on nth June last, of which I am sending him a copy. I have nothing to add to that reply.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Roosevelt, Admiral Lang, and Admiral Vickery have all made public statements in the United States and that those statements are well known to the enemy? Is it not time that the public in this country were made aware of the gravity of the position?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think that that affects the validity of the reasons which were given before for non-publication in this country.

Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that if the grievous, though not irremediable, position, which is known to a great many of us, is not made known to the public, the public will have one of the nastiest shocks they have ever had in their lives, in the next two months?

Mr. Lipson: Are the figures published in the United States likely to be published in this country?

Mr. Clement Davies: Is there any possible reason why the figures, say, up to the end of March, could not be published? I can understand the general reason, but surely figures up to the end of March could be published.

Mr. Attlee: I will consider that suggestion.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures for April have been published in the United States, are known to shipowners and others in this country and disclose a very alarming state of affairs? Will he consider whether we ought not to have some statement, reassuring or otherwise, from the Government on this matter?

Mr. Attlee: The Question relates to recent months. I do not think it is affected by figures published some time ago and in another country. I will certainly bear in mind the points just raised, and I will discuss them with the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. Shinwell: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have to ask for facilities, if they can be afforded, but I give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOXES.

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, (1) whether he is aware that foxes are being preserved for the benefit of the Meynell Hunt on two farms situated at Ashbourne and Matlock; and whether, in view of the destruction of lambs and poultry by foxes, he will see that this practice is ended;
(2) whether any preserving or breeding or moving of foxes is being done for the benefit of the Barlow Hunt;
(3) whether he will take steps to ensure during war-time that every measure is taken to destroy foxes by every meanspossible?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): County war agricultural executive committees, with the co-operation of various hunts, are taking all suitable steps to ensure the destruction of foxes in the interests of food production. My information is that no foxes are being preserved for the benefit of particular hunts.

FARMERS (CO-OPERATION).

Colonel Carver: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any county war agricultural committees have evolved plans for the voluntary formation of groups of small farms in their areas, so facilitating joint arrangements for purchasing expansion machinery and pooling labour resources and plant?

Mr. Hudson: County war agricultural executive committees have been instructed to take steps to organise co-operation between farmers in order to make the most efficient use of available machinery, and propaganda is being carried on by the committees and through other agencies to further this "Help-your-neighbour" campaign.

LIME SUPPLIES.

Captain York: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the shortage of supplies of lime; and whether he can give any encouragement to farmers, who have been informed by their suppliers that deliveries cannot be made until next winter or spring, that in fact supplies will be available before autumn ploughing commences?

Mr. Hudson: I am aware that there are local shortages of certain kinds of lime, but every endeavour is being made by my Department to increase the quantity available. It should be possible for the great bulk of the orders now with suppliers to be delivered before the autumn ploughing commences, but farmers will have to be prepared to accept, where necessary, delivery of a kind of lime alternative to that ordered.

Captain York: Is the Minister aware that in the West Riding of Yorkshire farmers are already being told that they cannot obtain supplies of lime before December?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, but in the majority of cases that I have investigated that is because the farmer has ordered a particular type of lime. I cannot guarantee to supply particular types of lime in particular areas. Farmers must take whatever lime is available.

VETERINARY SERVICE.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that, under present conditions,


every veterinary surgeon is giving full-time service; and whether, in view of the substantial loss to the country which still results from mortality of dairy stock and other animals from disease, he will arrange for county war agricultural committees to provide, at State expense if necessary, veterinary inspection and treatment, even where this is not sought by individual farmers?

Mr. Hudson: In so far as all veterinary surgeons may not be fully employed, the voluntary scheme for the control of diseases of dairy cattle introduced on 1st June, and the realisation on the part of farmers of the advantage of consulting their veterinary surgeons at an early stage of any trouble, should result in the fuller utilisation of the services of the veterinary profession. The suggestion made in the latter part of the Question is impracticable, if only because the successful control of diseases of animals depends very largely upon willing co-operation between farmer and practitioner.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.

Mr. Denman (by Private Notice): asked what steps the Minister of Agriculture is taking to avoid unnecessary employment of children of 12 and 13 years of age in agriculture, and in particular to limit the maximum hours of work to four a day?

Mr. Hudson: Instructions have been given to county war agricultural executive committees not to encourage or to facilitate the employment of children under the age of 14 until every other source of supplementary labour (including local women, the older children at public and secondary schools and soldier labour if available) has been fully used. Committees have been asked to make every effort to see that children under 14 do not work for more than four hours a day. Arrangements are to be made wherever possible for the work to be spread over such number of children as will enable individual children to be employed for half days only (up to four hours) at a time, and in term-time to attend school for either the morning or afternoon session.

Sir Percy Harris: How is provision made to protect the children from being put on heavy work, and to see that the work is at any rate of a character suitable for child labour?

Mr. Hudson: I think we can leave that to my war agricultural committees and the local education authorities.

Mr. Harvey: Arising out of the reply of the Minister, which in many ways will relieve anxiety, may I ask whether he has made Regulations to provide against the possible overstrain of children who are physically unfit and whether he is aware of the anxiety of head teachers on that point?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, that has been taken care of.

Mr. Radford: Is the Minister aware that many of us, when we were children, went to haymaking and other farm work for pleasure?

Mr. Denman: In view of the Minister's assurance, for which I am grateful to him, I desire to give notice that I shall not deem it necessary to proceed with the Prayer which is down for next week. I think I am also speaking for my hon. Friends whose names are associated with mine.

Mr. A. Bevan: Even although the right hon. Gentleman is communicating with the county war agricultural committees, is he asking the President of the Board of Education to communicate with the rural education authorities to prevent them from allowing children to leave school?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, the whole arrangement is being conducted with the closest co-operation between the Board of Education and my Department.

Mr. Bevan: That is not the point. Is the Minister going to communicate with the rural education authorities to see that they do not release the children from school?

Mr. Hudson: That has already been done.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Is the Minister satisfied that he has the machinery in various districts to enforce these regulations?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: What form of collaboration is there between education authorities and war agricultural committees to see that farmers do not violate the regulations laid down? Is the Minister


aware that excessive enthusiasm on the part of farmers may cause the children to work excessively long hours?

Mr. Hudson: That is being provided for in the instructions which are being sent out to the committees. In addition, penalties for a breach have been strengthened.

Mr. David Adams: Will the householders billeting children have the right to send those children to work on the farms?

Mr. Hudson: An attempt will be made to obtain the parents' consent. It is only if we cannot communicate with the parents that those in charge of the children will be entitled to give the consent.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that children love working on farms?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLY.

BLACK MARKET OPERATORS (PENALTIES).

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to what extent there are signs that increased penalties have caused any reduction in black marketing?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): As the increased penalties have been in force for less than three months, it is too early at present to judge whether these penalties are acting as a substantial deterrent to black market operators.

PROSECUTION, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with the charge made against John Leonard Cook, of Penistone Road, Sheffield; and the various kinds of foods concerned?

Mr. Mabane: The person referred to was charged at Sheffield on 9th June by the police with receiving certain goods and, at the instance of this Department, with acquiring flour in excess of the amount required by his household for one month's consumption, and was committed for trial at the quarter sessions on both charges. A list of the goods removed from the premises by the police is being sent to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CLOSED SHOPS. ROCHESTER AND CHATHAM.

Captain Plugge: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many retail shops have been closed in Rochester and Chatham, owing to war difficulties, since the start of the war?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I regret that the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend has asked is not available.

Lieutenant Butcher: How many new departments have been opened up by chain stores in the same areas and the same districts?

Captain Waterhouse: I cannot say without notice.

HOSIER'S CONVICTION (UNPAID FINE).

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Isaac Isenberg, hosier, of Cutler Street, Houndsditch, who, on 9th March, was fined £7,521 for selling goods in excess of his quota, has paid the fine within the time given him to pay, which expired on Friday, 12th June?

Captain Waterhouse: As this man had only paid £500 by 12th June, he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment in respect of the non-payment of the balance of the fine.

Mr. Thorne: Will going to prison relieve this man of his financial obligation?

Captain Waterhouse: I should like to have notice of that question, but I think that is the case.

Mr. Thorne: Can the Leader of the House make a statement as to whether that is the law?

COTTON PIECE GOODS, MANCHESTER.

Mr. Hammersley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large quantities of cotton piece goods, originally intended for the Dutch East Indies, are held up in Manchester warehouses; that permission to transfer these goods to the West African market is being withheld by the Cotton Board; that the owners of these goods are, in consequence, forced to incur substantial additional charges for interest,


storage and insurance; and what steps he is taking to ensure that this delay involving wasteful expenditure with consequent unnecessarily high charges to approved, friendly and willing purchasers, is brought to an end?

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): Yes, Sir. Negotiations are proceeding which, I hope, will satisfactorily resolve these difficulties.

Mr. Hammersley: As these negotiations have now been going on for something like two months, is it not quite clear that it is in everybody's interest that this unnecessary delay should cease, and could not the goods be disposed of?

Mr. Johnstone: I am hoping that the negotiations will be satisfactorily concluded very soon.

COTTON INDUSTRY (LEVY).

Mr. Hammersley: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the inability of British Overseas Cottons, Limited, to carry out its expected functions under existing conditions, whether he will consider the abolition, or substantial decrease, of the levy of 5d. per 100 lbs. imposed on imported raw cotton to finance British Overseas Cottons, Limited.

Captain Waterhouse: As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) on nth June, my right hon. Friend is reviewing this matter. He hopes to reach a decision shortly.

Mr. Hammersley: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any indication of what is meant by "shortly"? Does it mean within a few weeks' time?

Captain Waterhouse: I am afraid that I cannot give any exact definition of the word in this context.

UTILITY CLOTHING (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS).

Colonel Carver: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the proposal to make a certain number of dyed battle dress uniforms available for farm workers has been well received; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of providing a regular supply of

such utility clothing for agricultural workers.

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir. This proposal has been welcomed. I have noted my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion for further supplies of such clothing.

Mr. Higgs: Why should the distribution of these battle dresses be confined to agricultural workers; cannot industrial workers be included?

Captain Waterhouse: There is no question of so confining them. This was a particular lot of battle dresses which were issued specifically to agricultural workers, but I hope that a future issue will be made which will be available for everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the decision in the case of Fibrosa Société Anonyme v. Fairbairn Lawson Coombe Barbour, Limited, and the previous recommendations of the Law Revision Committee, he proposes to introduce legislation to secure an equitable apportionment of prepaid sums which will have to be returned when a contract is frustrated?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The statement of the law embodied in the decision of the House of Lords in the case to which my hon. Friend refers raises a number of questions of great importance and technical difficulty. They are under consideration by my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and myself with a view to the preparation of legislation on the subject, if, on a further examination, it should appear proper and if Parliamentary exigencies permit.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that until there is legislation this decision will create nearly as much hardship as it will prevent?

The Attorney-General: That is a matter of opinion. I agree that this decision does raise a number of problems, which we are considering, to see whether legislation could be prepared, and could be submitted to the House, under present circumstances.

Captain Plugge: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend how soon the


decision as regards new legislation to which he has just referred will be arrived at?

The Attorney-General: I could not say that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS).

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the Attorney-General the number of applications submitted by non-commissioned officers and other ranks of the Army to the Poor Persons Committee of the Law Society for leave to sue for dissolution of marriage under the Poor Persons Rules between the period 3rd September, 1939, and 31st May, 1942; the number of cases in which such leave has been granted; and whether he will also furnish a progress Report showing the present position of these cases?

The Attorney-General: I regret that the information asked for is not available, and it would not be possible to obtain it except at the expenditure of an amount of labour which would not I think be justified. I may, however, state that while during the earlier part of the period specified there was great delay and difficulty owing to the dislocation caused by the war, in recent months the situation has been distinctly improved, largely through the labours of the Law Society, and it is hoped at an early date to make still further improvements in the procedure in relation to these cases.

Mr. Muff: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that an Army Council Instruction has been issued which is very helpful on this very important matter, and which enables commanding officers to help those of their men who have matrimonial troubles?

Mr. Sorensen: What is the average time which elapses between an application being made and the case being heard?

The Attorney-General: I could not say; it may not be very long.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR BUILDINGS (HEATING AND VENTILATION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of

Works and Buildings whether any postwar reconstruction section of the Ministry is dealing with problems of heating and ventilation and also as to the causes and effects of atmospheric pollution?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): Yes, Sir. At the invitation of the Ministry of Works and Buildings, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has undertaken a preliminary inquiry into the heating and ventilation of post-war buildings, in which regard has been paid to the causes and effects of atmospheric pollution. That Department is now setting up at the request of my noble Friend a full Committee of experts to make definitive report, and all important interests affected will be included in the investigations.

Mr. Adams: Is the report likely to be issued at an early date?

Mr. Hicks: The report itself is being drawn up, and they have been studying it now for over seven months. The Committee is now putting it into its final shape, but I could not say how soon it will be ready.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECOND-HAND TRACTORS (PRICES).

Commander King-Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he is aware that second-hand tractors are now being sold at prices nearly double the cost of new tractors; and whether he will consider controlling the price of second-hand tractors?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir. My noble Friend, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, is proposing to make an Order under Regulation 55 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, controlling the price of second-hand tractors and certain other classes of contractors' and agricultural plant.

Commander King-Hall: While thanking my hon. Friend for his Reply, may I ask him when that Order is likely to be put into force?

Mr. Hicks: Before the end of this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER.

PETROL ALLOWANCE (CHURCH-GOING).

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, as applicants are meeting with refusals to their requests, he will instruct petroleum officers to grant a sufficient allowance of petrol to enable persons to attend public worship who live two or more miles from their church?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend regrets that, in view of the urgent need to economise petrol, he cannot adopt this suggestion.

ARMED FORCES (LEAVE, PETROL).

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has yet been able to make adequate arrangements to ensure that supplies of petrol for private purposes will be made available to pilots and crews of operational aircraft when on leave?

Mr. Lloyd: The special allowance of petrol to operational crews of aircraft and to certain other members of the Fighting Services when on leave remains unaffected by the abolition of the basic ration for private cars.

TIMBER.

Mr. De la Bère (for Mr. Liddall): asked the Minister of Supply whether he will consult with the appropriate local authorities with a view to arranging for the felling of timber unsuitable for building or pit prop purposes now standing in fields, woods and hedgerows in Sussex, Hampshire and Surrey, so as to supplement the supplies of domestic fuel for the coming winter in districts far from the coalfields and to save haulage?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Peat): The available labour is fully required for felling timber required for manufacture or use as pit props, but the Home Grown Timber Production Department of the Ministry of Supply is co-operating with the Ministry of Fuel and Power to make waste wood available for use as fuel.

VOLUNTARY RATIONING.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when the appeal for the voluntary rationing of fuel will be made?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. T. Smith): Perhaps my hon. Friend would put down another Question on this subject in a week's time.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I will do as the hon. Gentleman asks me to do, but I would point out that it is now five or six weeks since the suggestion for this voluntary rationing was made in the House, and is it not time that something was done?

Mr. Smith: Ways and means are being considered, and no undue delay will occur.

Mr. Buchanan: Can I have an assurance that when the Government do bring in a scheme they will stick to it for more than ten minutes?

Mr. Smith: I will bring that point to the notice of my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MEDICAL OFFICERS (TEMPORARY RELEASE).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the difficulties which have arisen owing to the recent increased transfer of medical and surgical practitioners from civilian to military duties, involving depletion of hospital staffs and much heavier claims on the time and strength of private practitioners; and whether, in order to relieve the strain, he will consider the practicability of the temporary release for civilian duties of officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps, now on home service, whose present duties could be undertaken by a smaller number of officers?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): The allocation of doctors for the needs of the Fighting Services, in relation to those of the civilian population, is based on a careful system of priorities worked out by the Medical Personnel Priority Committee set up by the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the three Service Ministers. Many medical officers have already been granted temporary release from the Army to meet civilian needs This practice has been in force for over 12 months, and we shall maintain it as fully as the needs of the Service allow us.

Mr. Harvey: Will the War Office also consider releasing these men, say, for two hours a day in those cases where a medical officer is stationed close to his previous work?

Mr. Sandys: I will look into the possibility of adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion.

UNITED NATIONS CEREMONY, RISCA.

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a United Nations parade and drum-head service were held at Risca, Monmouthshire, on Sunday evening last; that the Home Guard and all the other local services were there in, full strength, but that the unit of the Regular Army stationed there did not attend, although invited to do so; whether any orders to this effect had been given; and who was responsible for the refusal?

Mr. Sandys: The only regular unit at Risca is one Royal Army Service Corps transport company. I understand that the company commander would have been only too willing to send a party of soldiers to represent the Army at this ceremony, but that the unit's military duties on that day made it impossible for him to spare sufficient men to provide an adequate detachment.

Sir C. Edwards: That cannot be true, because I myself saw a couple of dozen men walking about who ought to have been in the parade.

Mr. Sandys: I understand that not more than 10 men would have been available to represent the Army at this ceremony, and the company commander did not feel that that would be an adequate representation.

Sir C. Edwards: I saw a dozen, and spoke to them.

HOME GUARD.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will send out a comprehensive circular to all the officers commanding units of the Home Guard directing their attention to the necessity of refraining from utilising the services of the farm-workers, especially cowmen, who are members of the Home Guard, for military exercises as far as possible during the course of the next six

weeks in view of the national importance of hay-making, harvesting and obtaining the maximum output from the farms?

Mr. Sandys: Instructions have recently been issued to Home Guard commanders informing them that in assessing a man's hours of training and operational duty they must give full weight to the claims of his civilian employment. The importance of not interfering with essential farm work is well known to Home Guard commanders in country districts.

Mr. De la Bère: While admitting that the actions of most commanding officers in these matters are very satisfactory, does my hon. Friend appreciate that there are certain instances where they do not realise that on Saturdays and Sundays the cows cannot milk themselves, and will he draw their attention to the need for cowmen being allowed to carry on their duties on Saturdays and Sundays?

Mr. Sandys: I believe that the habits of cows are well known to Home Guard commanders in country districts.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that men who are in receipt of a disability pension and are called up for a further medical examination with a view to their disability being re-assessed have, in consequence, to be absent from work for several hours, with corresponding loss of wages; and will he arrange for such men to be entitled to claim compensation for wages lost in this way?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The regulations of the Ministry have always included provision for compensating pensioners for wages lost through being called up for medical examination for re-assessment of disablement.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister see that the Regulation is enforced, because a constituent of mine has been called up twice in six months, and when he applied for compensation he was laughed at?

Sir W. Womersley: If the hon. Member will let me know the particulars of that case, I will deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL AND MILITARY OFFICERS (PENSIONS).

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the negotiations recently carried out by the Lord Privy Seal during his visit to India, the Government will give retired civil and military officers a guarantee that their pensions will be safe guarded whatever change may come about in the Constitution of the Government of India?

Mr. Boulton (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. I have no doubt that when the time comes for dealing with further constitutional developments in India, due regard will be paid by His Majesty's Government and by Parliament to the safeguarding of pensionary obligations.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Secretary of State that there is very grave anxiety regarding this question, and that a mere statement that he has no doubt that due regard will be paid will not satisfy, in view of past experience, that there may not be some legislation passed detrimental to these officers?

POLITICAL PARTIES' OFFICES (POLICE VISITS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether routine police visits are regularly made to the offices of the Indian National Congress and to the offices of other Indian political parties; whether the duplicators removed from the Allahabad office have now been returned; and what was the purpose of removing them?

Mr. Boulton: So far as my right hon. Friend is aware, the answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. He has received no further information regarding the incident at Allahabad and is not in a position to answer the remainder of the Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate to the Secretary of State that information on this point would be highly appreciated? Can he state exactly what is meant by "routine visits," as announced last week, and why the duplicators were removed? It is quite unnecessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOUBLE SUMMER-TIME.

Mr. Lipson (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make about the duration of double summer-time this year?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The Government have carefully weighed all relevant considerations and have come to the conclusion that the advantages, including the estimated saving of fuel which would result, are insufficient to outweigh the disadvantages particularly to agriculture of extending the duration of double summer-time beyond 8th August next.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the estimated saving of fuel would be?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid it is so speculative that We could not possibly put a precise figure on it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Might I ask the Leader of the House to state the forthcoming Business?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—We shall ask the House to pass a special Consolidated Fund Bill through all its stages. Afterwards, a Debate will take place on a Motion relating to Family Allowances,
Second Sitting Day—Supply (9th Allotted Day), Committee. A Debate on Colonial Affairs will take place.
Third Sitting Day—We shall consider the Report from the Committee of Privileges on the complaint which was dealt with by the House a short time ago in Secret, Session. This arrangement must, however, depend upon the decision of the House on the Motions relating to Procedure which are to be moved later to-day by the Chairman of the Committee.
If there is time, we shall take the Second Reading of the Allied Powers (War Service) Bill, and Motions to approve the Coal (Charges) Order and the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order.

Mr. Greenwood: Is it contemplated that on the first Sitting Day there will be only a very short Debate on the Consolidated


Fund Bill, so that there will be ample time to debate the Motion on family allowances?

Sir S. Cripps: It is hoped that there will be no need for any Debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, so that the whole of the time will be available for debating the Motion on children's allowances.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend been directed to the somewhat interesting position disclosed in connection with the Motion on family allowances? Is he aware that originally there was a Motion on the Paper, in the names of about 200 Members, and that, as a result of submissions by the Government to the sponsors of that Motion, it was agreed, by some at all events, to accept another form of words, and yet that the original Motion is still on the Paper? For which Motion do the Government accept responsibility, and for which Motion will they provide facilities? While I appreciate, speaking for myself, that the Government must take up the time of hon. Members—that is to say, that Government Business must have precedence over private Members' Business—does my right hon. and learned Friend not appreciate also that private Members have rights, and that if they put a Motion on the Paper it ought not to be set aside by any decision of the Government, on a purely private issue?

Sir S. Cripps: The origin of the Debate on family allowances was, I understand, that it was represented to the Government some time ago that a substantial number of Members of all parties desired to debate the matter. The Government consulted, through the usual channels, the Members organising this matter, on behalf of those other Members who put their names to a Motion, this Session and last Session, in order to decide on a form of Motion which would admit of a wide Debate and which would prove generally agreeable to the House. The terms of that Motion are those which appear, for the first time, on the Order Paper, in page 1948, to-day. It is that Motion for which the Government intend to give facilities, subject to any Amendments which may appear on the Paper.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not certain whether this is a question which ought properly to be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend or to you, Sir. Are we

to understand that the original Motion cannot be discussed at all?

Sir S. Cripps: I think that probably the correct answer is that if any hon. Member wishes to put the difference of the substance between the two Motions to the House, it will have to be done in the form of an Amendment to the Motion which now appears on the Order Paper.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: In connection with the reference which my right hon. and learned Friend made to the matter of the Committee of Privileges, might I ask whether, in the event of the recommendations of the Committee being accepted to-day, further consideration of the matter will be taken on the third Sitting Day?

Sir S. Cripps: That is the idea. If the recommendations were to be accepted, the document might be ready on the morning of the first Sitting Day. It is thought that it would be convenient to the House if a certain time for consideration were allowed before the Debate on the third Sitting Day.

Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be so kind as to convey this point to the Prime Minister—not only on my behalf, but on behalf of several other Members? The point is whether the Prime Minister would consider making a statement at the commencement of Business on the first Sitting Day in regard to the position in Libya and the recent battle in the Mediterranean. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring to the Prime Minister's notice the inconvenience, as some of us think of the present arrangement—the precedent, in fact, which has grown up in recent months—by which the Prime Minister makes a statement at the commencement of a battle in Libya, or anywhere else, and then no other authoritative statement is made by the Government until long after the operations are over when a Debate takes place on certain events? Will he have regard to the fact that information is given freely to the Press by the Ministry of Information, with suggestions as to the line to be taken in leading articles; information is given out on the wireless; and this House ought to be placed in possession of authoritative information.

Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly convey to my right hon. friend what the noble Lord has said.

Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise for returning to an earlier subject, but I was not able, Sir, to catch your eye at an earlier moment. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of a Motion being put in a form which the Government hope will be agreeable to the whole House, is that an indication that this Motion is recommended to the House by the Government and becomes a Government Motion?

Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order. I listened to the point raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Does the Government spokesman now decide, Sir, which of a series of private Members' Motions on the Paper is to be called by you?

Mr. Speaker: The powers that I have refer only to Amendments. As regards Motions on the Paper, it is entirely for the Government to decide which one they give facilities for.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand from that that a Motion submitted by private Members can be set aside in favour of another Motion submitted by private Members because the Government prefer the Motion which suits themselves?

Mr. Speaker: The Government may select the Motion for which they will give facilities.

Sir S. Cripps: As I understand the position, the Motion remains a private Member's. Motion, and it is not in any sense adopted by His Majesty's Government. All His Majesty's Government have tried to do, as I pointed out before, is to get a form of Motion which will give the widest possible Debate on the subject, and which will prove generally agreeable to the House.

Mr. Denman: On the Business for the third Sitting Day, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether until the Report is presented it is certain that the House desires to discuss that matter at all; and, if not, who should he impose a Debate upon the House?

Sir S. Cripps: I have told the House that the arrangements must depend upon the decision of the House to-day on the Motions relating to procedure, which will be moved later by the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges The Government had to make arrangements for a

Debate, in case the House desired such a course to be taken.

Mr. Denman: Does not the course which the House may desire to take depend, not upon the result of to-day's Motions, but upon their decision after they have seen the Report?

Sir S. Cripps: There may not be a desire for a Debate. When the opportunity is given the House may not desire to take it, but the Government must give the opportunity for a Debate in case there is a desire for one.

Colonel Arthur Evans: As regards the Business for the second Sitting Day, may I ask whether the House will be afforded facilities to discuss the Motion on a Colonial Development Council standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) and other hon. Members?

Sir S. Cripps: In Committee of Supply the appropriate Votes will be put down, including the Votes for the Colonial Office and Colonial and Middle Eastern Services, so as to allow as full a Debate as possible, to cover the whole field. We cannot, of course, take a particular Motion, because it is a Supply Day.

Captain P. Macdonald: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that if it is found that the Debate is likely to occupy a great deal of time, the Rule will be suspended for it?

Sir S. Cripps: If the House generally desires to have a suspension of the Rule, the Government will certainly take the necessary steps.

Miss Rathbone: In regard to the question of family allowances, as it is important that the House should know just what Motion is to be discussed and what the conditions will be, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we are to understand that the Motion which is to be considered is that which has now been substituted by the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Wing Commander Wright) and myself and others for the previous Motion; and shall we by debating that Motion be able to explain that we accepted this form, in view of the Government's desire for a Motion which might be more acceptable to the Government? Shall we be able to explain the position without an Amendment being moved to the Motion which has now been put down?

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Lady is quite accurate as regards which Motion is to be discussed. As regards what she will be permitted to say in the course of the Debate, that is not a matter for me.

Mr. A. Bevan: Arising out of the hon. Lady's statement that negotiations took place—as mentioned earlier by the right hon. Gentleman—between the sponsors of the original Motion and the Government. I understand that those sponsors have put their names to the subsequent Motion which now appears on the Order Paper. In view of the fact that they withdrew their original Motion, on the assumption that the subsequent Motion would be more favoured by the Government, are we now to understand that the Government do not particularly favour the Motion at all and that the promoters of the original Motion have, therefore, really been deceived and have allowed themselves to be seduced by the Government into withdrawing their original Motion?

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member would be quite wrong if he were to put that interpretation upon it, but the Government's attitude towards the Motion will appear more clearly in the course of the Debate.

Major C. S. Taylor: May I ask when time will be given for a discussion on the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne and others on the question of the pay and allowances of certain classes of individuals in the Army?

Sir S. Cripps: That matter has been noted, and conversations can take place through the usual channels.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask whether the Rule will be suspended on the first Sitting Day, to enable Members of all parties to take part in the discussion on family allowances?

Sir S. Cripps: If there is a general desire on the part of the House that the Rule should be suspended, the Government certainly will not stand in the way.

Sir L. Lyle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask hon. Members to curtail their speeches to 15 minutes each?

Sir S. Cripps: I think that yesterday hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were very good indeed in that respect and that we got through a large number of speeches in a very short time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir Stafford Cripps.]

PRIVILEGES.

SPECIAL REPORT.

Ordered,
That the Special Report from the Committee of Privileges be now considered."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Special Report considered accordingly.

Mr. Attlee: I beg to move.
That in the case of the Report to be made from the Committee of Privileges on the Matter of the Complaint referred to their consideration on 5th May the following provisions shall apply:—

(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Fourteenth Resolution reported from the Select Committee on Printed Papers on 16th July, 1835, and agreed to by the House on 13th August, 1835, the Report and the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee, if reported, shall be printed for the use of Members only;
(2) Not more than six hundred and fifteen copies shall be printed;
(3) Any Member, or any other person, who discloses, or purports to disclose, the contents of the Report, or the Proceedings of, or the Evidence taken before, the Committee, or any portion, or the substance thereof, except in a Secret Session of this House and thereafter to such extent as the House may in Secret Session have determined, shall be guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House;
(4) The printed copies of the Report shall be numbered and placed in envelopes bearing a corresponding number, which shall be sealed and delivered to the Vote Office;
(5) Every Member shall be entitled to obtain a copy of the Report on applying personally at the Vote Office and giving a receipt for the same;
(6) When the consideration of the Report by the House has been concluded Members shall return their copies of the Report to the Vote Office under cover, such cover to bear the number of the copy of the Report therein contained;
(7) The Clerk of the House shall preserve two copies of the Report and cause the remainder to be destroyed,"


I move this Motion as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges. The House will have read the Special Report of 9th June from the Committee, and this Motion is an endeavour to carry out the suggestions made in that Report. The Committee of Privileges is the servant of the House, and it finds itself faced with a position which has no precedent. Its duty was to report to the House with regard to a complaint made against a Member of a breach of Privilege. On the other hand, the matter complained of arose in Secret Session, and it was obvious that any Report was bound to refer to the proceedings in Secret Session. Therefore, if we had published the Report in the usual way, we should, ourselves, have been violating that secrecy of the proceedings in Secret Session, which has been imposed by the Order of the House itself. We, therefore, had to consider in what way we could, at the same time, protect to the full the Privileges of all Members of the House and carry out the Orders of the House with regard to secrecy.
We discussed the matter very carefully, and we took advice from the Officers of the House, bearing in mind that this is not just a matter of one particular case. In the action that we take on this, we are laying down a precedent for the future, it may be for the near future, it may be for a future hundreds of years hence, because Parliamentary precedents tend to run for great numbers of years. Therefore, one must consider this proposal, not in the light of the particular case which we have had under discussion, but in that of the general question of what procedure is to be adopted in rendering a Report of the Committee of Privileges to the House, on a matter that arose in Secret Session. The alternatives seemed to be either to render a merely verbal report or to take some such line as that which we have suggested. We considered whether it would be possible to make a verbal report. I am sure the House would not have been satisfied by a mere verbal report giving the recommendations of the Committee without setting out the facts and also probably setting out the evidence. Therefore, if a verbal report were to be rendered, it would be necessary for the House to meet in Secret Session, to hear the report and perhaps to have all the evidence read, and in such a case only those who were present at that Sitting would know about the report. That is


one objection. It would be difficult for the House in a complicated matter to get the bearing of the evidence just at one period. It would further involve necessarily taking up the time of the House with a matter upon which there might be no desire or reason for debate, but in my experience for a considerable time now on the Committee of Privileges, it is comparatively seldom that the House wants to discuss the Report, which more often than not passes without debate.
There is a further point that now occurs on that report. There might be some matter of principle involving interpretation of Privilege which would need to be fully discussed and which ought to be on record. Therefore, it seems that the verbal report would not really meet the case. We therefore considered how else we could do it, and our proposals, although they look rather cumbrous, are designed to safeguard, first of all, the right of the Member whose conduct has been called in question; secondly, the rights of all Members of the House; and thirdly, the preservation as far as possible of the secrecy of the proceedings in Secret Session which has been imposed by Order of the House itself.
I do not think that I need go into detail as to the procedure suggested. It is set out. The object is, that the Report should be printed by the printers who are accustomed to dealing with secret matters. That, of course, is a matter for the House to decide. We have no power to go out side the ambit of those who are already entrusted with the secrets of the House in Secret Session. Then, every Member should have his copy, and we should invite Members, after the matter has been disposed of, to return those copies to the House, and two copies would be kept for record.

There is an Amendment down by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), who suggests that these Reports should be returned, if not considered by the House within 14 days of the day on which the Report is available in the Vote Office. I see no objection to that except that it might be rather a short time, because it may be that the House could not find time, but as a general principle I should think that that might be accepted. I call attention to the fact that since this Motion appeared

on the Paper there has been a slight alteration, and that is in the third sub-section, inserting:
and thereafter to such extent as the House may in Secret Session have determined.

The object of that clause is to prevent anyone divulging the contents of the Report or the evidence, before the House has had an opportunity of determining how much can be published and how much must be kept secret. On the other hand, it is obviously right that the House should decide as to what Report should be given and what Report it should authorise Mr. Speaker to issue after the Debate, and there was some doubt as to whether, in the original form, that would be secured. It is really a matter of preserving secrecy; it is not a Governmental matter at all. It is really a matter of the Committee of Privileges wishing to serve the House in the best way, and we put this forward, after consideration, as the best way of enabling the House to get that Report before it. It is purely a matter for the House whether it wishes to discuss it at length. It will no doubt depend upon the view it takes of the Report of the Committee but I think it is obvious from what has been said that if there is to be a discussion, it must be in Secret Session and be for the House itself to decide how much of that must be divulged.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: The House will perhaps permit me to make a few observations. We have listened to the speech of the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges on this Motion with some interest, in the sense that it deals with something that has not arisen before in the transactions of this House. Although I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House on this matter, I am sure that it will not grudge giving some little time to it even during a great war. It involves some issues which are cherished by this House and by all hon. Members in it. We want to maintain, strengthen and protect, as far as we can, the Privileges of this House and of every Member in it, and his reputation, whenever that is assailed. We are indebted to the Committee of Privileges for the time and care which they have given to this matter and for the very long consideration that they must have accorded it in order to deal with a somewhat novel situation. The situation really


is somewhat novel in the sense that it is secret, and it is also public to a certain extent. It is secret in the sense that the allegation was made in this House by an hon. Member in the course of a Secret Session and that it was discussed and considered by the Committee of Privileges in secret sitting as well, but it is also public in the sense that you, Mr. Speaker, issued a Report on the matter after the last Secret Session of the House which considered this question. Indeed there was a Report issued to the public and to all Members of the House who were not here of the Division which took place after the matter had been considered. So that it is in a sense not entirely secret. All the names of those who took part in the Division were published. One is in some difficulty in dealing with this matter, because one is precluded from actually mentioning the charge or the allegation which was made against the hon. Member concerned, and certainly the last thing that anyone in this House would wish to do would be to mention the name of the hon. Member who is concerned in this allegation until the procedure which is suggested here is adopted by the House, or any other contrary course is taken.
There is a great deal in the matter which is being raised in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). When the original proposals were submitted the words mentioned were that the matter could be disposed either by the Report being considered by the House or
if the Report is not taken into consideration within whatever may be considered a reasonable time," etc.
I think that these words are very much better omitted as they have been omitted in the actual proposals now before the House.
There is one omission in the proposals which have been submitted by the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges to which the attention of the House ought to be called. That is the question of the form of the Report which Mr. Speaker will be making at the conclusion of this Business.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: On a point of Order. Would it be in Order for you, Sir, when this is over, to give us a short resumé of what is being said?

Sir H. Morris-JonesORDERS OF THE DAY: I did not quite catch what the hon. Member said. As I

was saying, there is one omission from the Report which I think the House might consider, and that is the question of the form of the Report which Mr. Speaker may be making at the conclusion of this Business.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the hon. Member that we are only debating the question of procedure?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I suggest, with great respect, Sir, that it has something to do with procedure in the sense that there may be required an Amendment to one of the Motions on the Order Paper? Perhaps you will allow me to elucidate that particular point. I will put it this way. This matter is both private and public. The hon. Member involved in this allegation has been put to a great deal of inconvenience—

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself entirely to the Motion on the Order Paper.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I am sorry that you will not allow me to develop that particular point, Sir. I have had authoritative advice on the question from someone who has a great knowledge of constitutional procedure, and I believe an Amendment would be required to one section of these proposals before the matter could be completed satisfactorily. From that point of view perhaps you would still allow me to bring forward the point I wish to make.

Mr. Speaker: If the suggestion has to do with an Amendment of procedure, the hon. Member can certainly make it.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: It will have to do with procedure. If the House has to consider the question of procedure, one of the most important elements before this matter is finally disposed of is how the Report upon the whole issue will be made. I suggest to the House that it is a matter of procedure, because the form of the Report may have a great effect on the whole question. The hon. Member with whom we are dealing at the moment has had a certain allegation made against him. Public allusion was made to it on a report on the matter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The question at the moment is semi-public in the sense that the hon. Member had his own witnesses before the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite out of Order to discuss the Report on this Motion.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I must bow to your Ruling on that point, Sir. I am quite sure the House will accept the proposal of the Committee of Privileges on this matter. Clearly it is designed to help us to come to a conclusion, although there is one thing to which allusion should be made, because it may have an effect on the voting. I want to allude to the fact that so far as any matter in connection with the Committee of Privileges is concerned the Government, of the day must be clearly dissociated from it. I am raising this because there is clear evidence— it is within the knowledge of the whole House—that on the last occasion when this matter was raised, the Government did not make it quite clear that they were completely dissociated. I am making allusion to the fact that when this was raised—

Earl Winterten: The hon. Gentleman is now referring to some alleged proceeding which took place previously. May I respectfully point out that we have never discussed this matter before? It is the first time there has ever been a Debate on it.

Mr. Speaker: I am trying to do my best to keep the hon. Member in Order.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member is wasting time.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I think I should be in Order in alluding to the Division which took place on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am trying to make the hon. Member understand that any reference to the Report is entirely out of Order in this Debate. This Debate is merely on the question of the procedure of the House.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In those circumstances I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping that I might have been allowed to make allusion to it, but in view of your Ruling I must, naturally, bow to it. I can only say that it is quite clear that the House will accept the recommendations of the Committee. It is the wish of the House that we shall have a Report and that that Report shall be printed. I do not think any Member will object to the printing and circulation

of the Report, although some hon. Members have mentioned to me that possibly undue expense will be caused and that there will be a waste of paper at this time in printing 615 copies. However, I am sure the House will not take that view. We are burdened a great deal these days with waste paper, and I do not think it will be thought that publication of this Report will mean any undue waste.

Major Milner: As I understand it, my right hon. Friend and the Committee of Privileges have devised what I hope the House may think is a very appropriate form of procedure in dealing with what is obviously a difficult matter and one which, owing to the circumstances of the time, has not arisen before. There is, however, one consideration which I think ought to be put to my right hon. Friend and the House. It appears to me that at present at any rate this Motion does not provide for the eventual exoneration or otherwise, in the eyes of the general public, of the hon. Member concerned. The Motion provides that a Report should be brought forward so that every Member can be made conversant with its contents, but there should be some provision in the Motion, or my right hon. Friend should make some indication, that after the Debate something should be given to the public to show that the Member concerned has been either exonerated or found to be at fault.

Mr. Attlee: That is a matter which is within the purview of the House when it comes to consider the Report concerning a Member. The Motion before the House is not concerned with the particular case, but is for dealing with any series of cases. What is to be done is a matter for the House to decide.

Major Milner: I am glad to know that that point has been in the mind of the Committee.

Mr. Mander: I beg to call attention to what appears to be a rather curious feature in relation to this Motion. The Chairman of the Committee of Privileges has put down this Motion on behalf of the Committee, presumably on behalf of the whole of the Committee, but now we find an Amendment has been put down to it by a member of the Committee. What is the significance of that? Cannot they agree on the recommendations which are before the


House? I should like to have an explanation why it is necessary for a member of the Committee to come forward and move an Amendment to his own Report.

Mr. Denman: I think that a very few sentences will be adequate to move the Amendment and to explain the reasons for it.

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order. I desire to speak on the Motion.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) wishes to move his Amendment, he must not exhaust his right to speak beforehand.

Mr. Bevan: It is perfectly clear that the Committee of Privileges have had a very difficult task to perform. They have had to draw up a most novel procedure to meet the purposes they have in view, namely, to protect the secrecy of a secret debate. As I have said, the procedure they have suggested is exceptional. But the House should bear in mind that not only must the secrecy of a secret Debate be preserved, but the position of the individual involved must also be preserved. I think, therefore, that the Committee of Privileges might have put a paragraph in the Motion to protect the status of the Member who might be involved in any particular charges made against him. It is clear that there are two aspects to the matter. Firstly, it is a fact that the House is involved, and, secondly, it is a fact that an individual Member of the House is involved, and involved with a certain degree of publicity, because no charge can be made against an hon. Member unless it is based on something exterior to the House itself. Therefore, the reputation and status of a Member immediately become publicly involved. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General shakes his head, but it is not possible for an hon. Member to commit an alleged breach of Privilege, unless such a breach occurs within the cognisance of Members outside the House.
The difficulty when we discuss this matter is that the charge is made in public and the procedure and trial are in secret. A charge is made against an hon. Member that he has committed a breach of Privilege outside the Chamber, and the problem we have to face, which the Committee does not seem to have faced in their Motion, is that no way has been suggested in which the individual concerned

might be protected against the unpleasant consequences of this most novel procedure. We cannot do it at this stage, but I hope that when we consider the Report we shall have an opportunity of discussing the way in which an individual can be protected against unpleasant consequences.

Mr. Garro Jones: I wish to make a suggestion on how this difficulty can be surmounted. There can be no doubt that we are in the presence of the danger that an hon. Member will be subjected to a charge which will be made in public, and the evidence will be taken in secret and the result or verdict will be made in public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not necessarily."] It may be that Mr. Speaker will be required to admonish the Member concerned, commit the Member or exonerate him, and, therefore, we must have some machinery which will enable the public to see clearly what that point of view is. I suggest the best way of bringing that about is not to provide for publication by Mr. Speaker or anyone else of a short summary of the Report, which may extend to 50 or 60 pages, but that the spokesman of the Government should go through it and decide, after taking the advice of his advisers, which parts of it would be contrary to the public interest to publish. It will be for the House to reject or accept the recommendations of the Government, but obviously the spokesman for the Government—

Mr. Speaker: This discussion should take place when the Report comes before the House.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Motion which has been proposed by the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges contains a provision to make public thereafter
to such extent as the House may in Secret Session have determined
the proceedings of this Committee. I am making a suggestion which would strengthen that provision. We are creating a precedent which may last for 30 or 40 years, and it is incumbent upon the House to make haste slowly in laying down this procedure. I suggest that only those parts of the Report which would be contrary to the public interest to publish should be deleted. We should therefore have published the whole of the Report, extending over perhaps 70 to 80 pages, and including the defence of the hon.


Member concerned, whoever he may be, which was put before the Committee.

Mr. Stephen: I desire to support the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). We have to be clear on what we are doing in regard to this procedure and the precedent which is being laid down. This procedure may have very serious consequences for the individual concerned. If there is a condemnation of the individual, and the House takes a very grave view of the matter, it may impose a heavy penalty on the individual, and he will have no opportunity to put his case before the public. If the individual is condemned, he will not be allowed by this procedure to make any statement to his constituents in justification of the line he took. We owe the Committee of Privileges a debt for the careful consideration that they have given to the matter, but I think, in connection with the new situation which has arisen with regard to these secret Debates, it is necessary that the House should have more guidance than it has had so far and that an attempt should be made, in devising procedure, to see that secrecy is maintained and also that the rights of the individual are protected against what might possibly be unfair treatment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee, if the House passes this, will pass on to consider further procedure in order that the rights of the individual may be adequately protected.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether any intervention on my part may hasten the matter. The question the House is now discussing is one that we ought to discuss on the third Sitting Day, when the Report is discussed, and the very question the House is anxious should be put into the Motion, so as to protect the Member, is already in at the end of paragraph (3):
any portion, or the substance thereof, except in a Secret Session of this House, and thereafter to such extent as the House may in Secret Session have determined, shall be guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House.
When the House discusses this Report it can do exactly what it pleases with those involved in that Report. Now is not the time for that to be done.

Mr. Bevan: Would it not probably be to the convenience of the House that, when we have disposed of this Report on

this individual Member, the Committee of Privileges should be asked to review the procedure now before the House with a view to more adequate protection of individual Members?

Sir John Wardlaw - Milne: I think the House must give proper consideration to what is a very distinct change in the procedure of the House of Commons and one of a very far-reaching character. The whole House is grateful to the Committee of Privileges and realises their difficulties and the trouble that they have taken to deal with a very exceptional situation, but I think it is well to consider where we stand. If this Motion is passed, the position will be that in any subsequent case no publicity need be given to the decision of the Committee of Privileges. That means in effect that a case may be sent to them, who sit in secret, and decide in secret, and the decision is printed in secret, and the Member in question is in a position in which he will have insinuations made against him publicly, and he has no means of redress or protection. I think the House ought to consider the situation from that point of view. There are very many aspects of this that one could develop. It is a very grave change in our procedure. I would ask the Chairman of the Committee whether it is impossible to print this Report for public circulation in the usual way with certain blanks dealing with those parts of it which were matters raised in Secret Session. It seems to me that, if something of that kind could be done, it would be very much better than starting on a procedure of this kind with far-reaching consequences, the effect of which on individual Members hon. Members themselves may not to-day fully realise.

Mr. Attlee: The difficulty is this. Up to now the name of the Member has never been published. Therefore, it ought not to be revealed, and this procedure is designed in order that it should not be revealed. You will leave out the whole case if you leave blanks. It puts the House in an impossible position. It is like leaving Hamlet out of the play.

Major Milner: On a point of Order: May I ask you, Sir, whether this Motion, if passed, will apply to all future cases or whether it only has relation to this particular case? It begins:


That in the case of the Report to be made from the Committee of Privileges on the matter of the complaint referred to their consideration on 5th May.
To the best of my knowledge that complaint was in relation to one particular case, and I am assuming therefore that the Motion will only refer to that particular case and will not be a general precedent for the future. Would you advise the House?

Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member knows that the procedure which is adopted on any particular occasion does become a precedent for a similar case, but this procedure, as is stated in the Motion, only refers to this particular case. It does not establish a case for all future occasions, as procedure for each case must be considered separately.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not a fact that on every occasion on which this procedure is desired to be followed it will be necessary for the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges to put a similar Motion on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: Undoubtedly.

Commander King-Hall: There are many serving Members who will not be able to get their Reports nor to be present at the Debate. Two copies of the Report are to be preserved. I think it should be made clear now whether Members who are not able to collect their copies or to be present at the Debate will be able to study those two copies at any later stage of the proceedings?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but I want to direct his mind to this before we discuss it further in Secret Session. He says that so far no reference to the Member has been made outside, and no one knows what the charge is or who is the Member involved. Let me take a hypothetical case. If the Member is charged with having divulged the proceedings at a Secret Session, presumably he has divulged them to someone, and that person knows and has initiated the procedure. I quite agree that the House can decide in Secret Session that the persons who have been called to give evidence against a particular Member shall be informed that the Member has been exonerated or otherwise. It is only fair perhaps to the Member. If there is a

substantial body of opinion in the House, including probably the Member himself, who think that the proceedings should be made public in order that the Member may be cleared, but a majority are against it, plainly an injustice would be done by having the Debate in Secret Session. To some extent the wishes of the Member should be consulted. I am basing myself purely on the supposition that witnesses have been called and know the subject-matter of the charge. I want to be sure that, if the Member is exonerated, they shall be acquainted with the decision.

Mr. Attlee: I will direct my mind to that on the proper occasion when the matter comes before the House.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Someone outside knows who the Member in question is. That individual is, I understand, not bound by the rules of secrecy which concern ourselves. Is there anything to prevent an outside individual saying who was the Member he reported, and if he does so, is it a breach of Privilege?

Mr. Attlee: On a point of Order. Are not these questions beginning to impinge on matters which occurred in Secret Session? I suggest that all these matters would be more properly raised on the Report of the Committee with regard to the individual case, for they will tend to lead us into discussing matters which we should not discuss.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: May I ask you, Sir, a further question arising out of the guidance you were good enough to give the House just now? This Motion sets up the machinery by which we shall discuss the Report. When the House is discussing the Report in Secret Session, will it be possible for the House to decide that the whole of the circumstances should be made public? I ask that because I see the difficulty which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew) put forward. An informer lays information, but there is no guarantee that he had not discussed that information with e his friends before he brought it to a Member of this House. Therefore, during the discussion of the Report the House might consider it desirable that the whole circumstances should be made public. Having parted with this Motion, will that be possible?

Mr. Speaker: Undoubtedly the House could do that if it wishes.

Mr. Maxton: I have noticed that the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), who is a member of the Committee of Privileges, has been constantly on his feet with the object of limiting the discussion to the harrow point to which his Amendment refers.

Mr. Denman: Is it not the case that if that Amendment were disposed of, the Debate on the main Question could then be resumed?

Mr. Maxton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will try to keep on his seat for half a minute, which he seems to find it impossible to do. I want to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that, so far as I know, it has not been the practice of members of Select Committees, particularly of the Committee of Privileges, to come here and move Amendments to the Reports of such committees.

Mr. Denman: My Amendment is not an Amendment to the Report.

Mr. Maxton: It is an Amendment to a Motion that has been put on the Order Paper by the Select Committee of which the hon. Member is a member and which has been moved by the Chairman. We will leave that point. This is the thing that strikes me about all this talk to-day and this Motion. If the hon. Member who brought this matter before the House originally had blurted out the name of the Member concerned, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) blurted out the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), the whole of the secrecy business would have been up in the air. Presumably the hon. Baronet acted with the approval of the House and of the Chair, and the only reason why the House and the Committee are in this difficulty is that the hon. Member who raised the other case observed a foolish reticence. We are now in the position that every Member of this House, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, is under suspicion of being the Member who is alleged to have offended, not excluding the occupant of the Chair himself. Now we cannot extricate ourselves out of the muddle we are

in except by going further in. One recalls the quotation,
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
I want the Committee, when they have this power, to consider how they are to reconcile the double standards of treatment which have been in operation right through these two cases, which were brought before the House originally on the same day. In one there has been the most complete publicity of the name, offence, report and dismissal. In the other case there has been the most complete secrecy and every stage of the proceedings has been behind closed doors. The House of Commons cannot stand for that procedure. We must have a procedure that applies with absolute equality to every Member of the House. I ask the Committee of Privileges to consider that aspect of this matter when they get this Motion, as I presume they will, carried by the House.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson (Farmham): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Sir C. Mac-Andrew) raised an important point whether a member of the public is prevented by Privilege from mentioning matters that were raised in Secret Session. I should be glad if we may have a reply to that point.

Mr. Speaker: The point is covered by paragraph (3) of the Motion.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, in paragraph (6), line 19, at the end, to insert,
or, if the Report be not considered by the House, within fourteen days of the day on which it is available in the Vote Office.
I should like to say a word in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who seemed to think that I was moving this Amendment as a member of the Committee of Privileges. These Motions are not sent here by the Committee. We made a Report from which the Motions have been drawn. My hon. Friend seemed to imply that we are adopting a procedure which is designed to leave the whole matter in secrecy and that it was the Committee's will that it should be left in secrecy. I have no title to speak for the Committee or for anyone but myself, but he will see that secrecy was imposed on the Committee by the House. The House did not refer to them a complaint against a named Member of the House, and we had necessarily to conduct the proceedings


in secrecy. It is not in the least the will of the Committee of Privileges. The Amendment raises quite a small point. The Motion as it stands necessitates a Debate upon the Report, and I think it is fairly obvious that a Debate will be required. If either the Member who made the complaint or the Member against whom the complaint was made, or any substantial body of Members, should demand a Debate, that Debate will necessarily be held; or, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, some principle of Privilege might be raised in the Report on which the decision of the House would be properly taken. But there is one other possible contingency, for which my Amendment provides, and since we are dealing not merely with this case, but are forming a precedent for similar cases—

Mr. Bevan: No, no. The hon. Member must not go on record as saying that at all. Mr. Speaker has already said that on each occasion this procedure would be put upon the Order Paper for discussion, and therefore it has to be voted upon on each separate occasion, so there is no precedent involved.

Mr. Denman: Because a Motion has to be voted upon on each occasion that does not mean that a previous decision is not a precedent. I am not going to argue with my hon. Friend about precedents, but the whole House knows that when we come to a decision on a given subject if a similar subject is raised in the same way in future that previous decision will act as a precedent. We all know that and there is no use in debating it. A Debate may not necessarily be desired by the House until the House has seen the Report.

Mr. Mander: On a point of Order. I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether my hon. Friend is in order in moving the Amendment. The Deputy Prime Minister when he moved the Motion said he did so as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges and that he was doing it on their behalf, and I desire to ask whether it is in Order for a member of the Committee of Privileges to move an Amendment to the procedure of his own Committee?

Mr. Speaker: It may be unusual, but it is not out of Order.

Mr. Maxton: It is supposed to be indecent, is it not?

Mr. Denman: I really must point out that these Motions have never come before the Committee of Privileges, and they are not written out in the language which we should necessarily have suggested. They are a translation of a Report that we made, and I am only suggesting that there may be a better translation.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member heard the Deputy Prime Minister say he was speaking on behalf of the Committee of Privileges when he introduced the Motion.

Mr. Denman: I did not catch that remark, and if he did use that phrase, it was not strictly accurate. He was moving it as Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House in this matter, and not on behalf of the Committee.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): I must ask the hon. Member to speak with a little accuracy. My right hon. Friend moved the Motion as the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges. It has nothing to do with the Government. He is not as a matter of fact Leader of the House, and he was not moving it as Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr. Denman: He moved, and the House agreed, that the Special Report should be now considered, but he had no sort of authority to move these Motions as Chairman of the Committee, seeing that they were never before the Committee.

Mr. Maxton: So you are denying responsibility?

Mr. Ernest Evans: Did the hon. Member subscribe to the findings of the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Stephen: Would it be in Order to move the Adjournment of this Debate until we have got it clear whether this is from the Committee of Privileges or not?

Mr. Bevan: Would it be in Order to suggest that in the selection of Members of the Committee greater discrimination should be shown?

Mr. Mathers: May I be allowed to point out to the House that the hon. Member, while a member of the Committee of Privileges, is also a Member of this House and is exercising his functions in that connection now?

Mr. Maxton: And biting the hand that feeds him.

Mr. Attlee: I really think the House is not doing itself very great credit in wartime. I suggest that these Motions were put down as consequential upon the Report rendered by the Committee of Privileges, and I should also like to suggest to my hon. Friend that he is mistaken in thinking that Reports from the Committee of Privileges lie about and that nothing is done to them. They are not necessarily Debated. They are put to the House and either accepted or rejected by the House. I understand that he wanted the thing brought on quickly. In that case it may be too quickly. I suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Denman: I think the precedents will show that Reports are not necessarily considered and approved, that Reports from Committees may be simply presented to the House, and no action is necessarily taken upon them. I was suggesting that it is quite conceivable that the collective wisdom of the House might decide that it was far better not to have a Debate and discussion in Secret Session, that it was better to let the matter drop and to avoid all this mystery-mongering which is necessarily connected with Secret Sessions. The purpose of the Amendment is not to prejudge the issue at all or to say whether there shall or shall not be a discussion but to give the House an alternative procedure which it might find of value. I should have thought the House would have welcomed the alternative. It is possible that neither the hon. Member complaining nor the hon. Member complained against may wish for a discussion, and therefore we might let the whole matter drop. It would be impertinent and improper for me to advocate that course, but I do suggest that it is reasonable that the House should not debar itself from that alternative procedure if it should chance to want it.

Lieutenant Butcher: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: I am surprised and almost shocked that my hon. Friend, after the request that he has had from the Chairman of the Committee— not from the Deputy Prime Minister—has not seen fit to withdraw his Amendment. As I understand it, all it means is that if no Debate is forthcoming within 14

days, hon. Members must then return their copies of the evidence to the Vote Office. I consider that is treating the House as a kindergarten. Why should we not have that evidence in our possession so that we can study it carefully for the Debate that is coming on? I must say that I oppose this Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That in the case of the Report to be made from the Committee of Privileges on the Matter of the Complaint referred to their consideration on 5th May the following provisions shall apply:—

(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Fourteenth Resolution reported from the Select Committee on Printed Papers on 16th July, 1835, and agreed to by the House on 13th August, 1835, the Report and the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee, if reported, shall be printed for the use of Members only;
(2) Not more than six hundred and fifteen copies shall be printed;
(3) Any Member, or any other person, who discloses, or purports to disclose, the contents of the Report, or the Proceedings of, or the Evidence taken before, the Committee, or any portion, or the substance thereof, except in a Secret Session of this House and thereafter to such extent as the House may in Secret Session have deter mined, shall be guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House;
(4) The printed copies of the Report shall be numbered and placed in envelopes bearing a corresponding number, which shall be sealed and delivered to the Vote Office;
(5) Every Member shall be entitled to obtain a copy of the Report on applying personally at the Vote Office and giving a receipt for the same;
(6) When the consideration of the Report by the House has been concluded Members shall return their copies of the Report to the Vote Office under cover, such cover to bear the number of the copy of the Report therein contained;
(7) The Clerk of the House shall preserve two copies of the Report and cause the remainder to be destroyed."

REPORT [9TH JUNE].

Ordered,
That the Report [9th June] from the Committee of Privileges (on the matter of the Complaint made on 7th May) be now considered."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Report considered accordingly.

Mr. McGovern: The Report which it is now proposed we should consider is exactly what I ex-


pected. Having a clear conscience in regard to the allegation that was made against me, I was confident that any fair-minded and unbiased committee—which I am sure the Committee of Privileges is—could but return the kind of Report with which we are now dealing. When the complaint was originally made, I paid tribute to the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare). I said I thought he was reporting this matter from a high sense of public duty, but I was not then in possession of all the facts. The hon. Baronet sent me an open telegram through the Post Office to Scotland, containing the statement that he was bringing forward this matter in the House of Commons, and although he said he would not refer to me until I was present, he committed the further breach of mentioning my name in public. I was prepared to forgive and forget all those seeming indiscretions, but when I found that he also voted in the Division Lobby against another hon. Member being sent before the Committee of Privileges because that hon. Member was his political friend, I took objection to the much less serious allegation that he should be instrumental not only in voting for my going to the Committee of Privileges, but in demanding publicly in the House of Commons that I should be sent to that Committee. In my estimation that dual role is the kind of thing that brings politicians and Parliamentary government into contempt in the country.
As to the Report itself, my view is that it does not state clearly that there was no secret information given by me in the speech that I delivered. It does not say clearly that I had not given any secret information of any kind in regard to the shipping question. A general view was held in the country, stated to be as a result of abbreviated reports of my speech in the newspapers, that the shipping figures had been given by the Prime Minister in Secret Session respecting shipping losses and that I was free to divulge those figures on the public platform, since they had been published in the American Press. I am prepared to admit that my very first reaction on seeing the report in our own paper "The New Leader," was that it conveyed that impression to me. It has been conveyed to the country that I revealed secret information regarding shipping. I want to make it clear that the Prime Minister did not, at any Secret

Session at which I was present, reveal any figures in regard to shipping losses. Therefore, the figures given by me did not allude in any way to anything that happened in Secret Session of this House.
I do not want to detain Members of the House, but although I am fundamentally opposed to the holding of Secret Sessions, I am opposed also to the disclosure of any secret information, especially when hon. Members have been placed on their honour not to divulge such information. In regard to the Prime Minister's statement that I brought up in the Committee, it has not been made sufficiently clear to me how the matter stands. I would like to recall what that statement said. Let me read from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
SIR I. ALBERY: Are the Government asking the House to agree to a Secret Session because they have statements to make which cannot be made in public?
THE PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. So far as the Government are concerned, we should welcome a Public Session, but unhappily if a Public Session were held, we should not be able to make any statements of the precise character which would be of interest to the House and which are important factors in the formation of the judgment of the House. What we have to do is to tell the House all that can be told on these matters in Secret Session, and then the House will, according to whether it feels confidence or the reverse, convey assurance or alarm to the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1941; col. 1266, Vol. 371.]
Up to the time the Committee sat, that statement was interpreted to mean that I was debarred in point of honour from conveying any military or naval information given in Secret Session to others outside this House, but it gave me the impression that I was free to make observations of a political character to show whether the Secret Session allowed Members to give assurance or alarm to the country. If I failed to that extent, I failed because of my interpretation of the assurance given by the Prime Minister in this House a year ago. The point may be put that the Prime Minister is not the custodian of the Rules of the House, and I would accept it; but while Mr. Speaker and the Clerk of the House are the authorities in charge of that matter, the impression which I have mentioned in regard to the Prime Minister's pledge was held for 12 months and has never previously been challenged. I assumed that I was entitled to make a political observation in connection with the Debate which had taken place.
That question has not been sufficiently answered, but if it is cleared up even by this seeming indiscretion of mine, I will be delighted. If the House says that Members must not on any occasion make even a political observation in relation to a Secret Session, I will loyally observe that Rule as laid down by the House. In connection with the allegation that has been made, I can only say that I am glad to know that the Committee of Privileges have exonerated me from any intention of divulging secret information give in Debate. Apart from a very odd Member of the House, whose curse I would rather have than his blessing, I desire the respect of hon. Members. There may be a political gulf between their point of view and mine, but I respect the opinions of hon. Members of this House when they are sincerely held, and I should like to know that they appreciate and apply the same principle in regard to myself. I desire to conform to the Rules laid down by hon. Members. I am glad to know that I have been freed in this House and in the country from any suggestion that I was handing over information which should not be divulged.
I want to thank the Committee of Privileges for the consideration and courtesy, and I believe the fairness, with which they have dealt with this question and have written their Report. Although the Members of the Committee were drawn from various political parties opposed to me, the Committee's decision showed to me that, in this very limited world, this is the freest Assembly in the world, and that it is prepared to do justice to an hon. Member when it can be shown fairly and squarely that he had no evil intentions towards the interests of the country.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) please withdraw from the Chamber?

Mr. McGovern: Mr. McGovern withdrew.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the committee in their Report."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: I wish to make only two short comments. The first is that the Committee of Privileges has rendered a great service to all Members in the House, in that it has clarified a point about which there was a great deal of doubt. Many Members doubted the extent to which they could

refer to their impressions of the atmosphere created by a Secret Session. That point has now been clarified, and we are all grateful. The second point is that I personally am glad that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has been exonerated. My object in raising this question was not to act as his prosecutor nor, indeed, to challenge his conduct, but to get a clear point of principle settled which arose out of his speech. It was in that spirit that I did it, and I am delighted that he has been exonerated.

Sir Irving Albery: With regard to this particular case, and after the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), no question can arise as to the decision which has been made with regard to him personally by the Committee of Privileges. I myself feel, on the other hand, that their decision does not altogether clear up the position, and that it leaves this House in a very difficult situation with regard to its future guidance. I have read this Report through on several occasions, and I must say that from it I am quite unable to understand on what basis the Committee of Privileges have arrived at the decision that the hon. Member' for Shettleston actually committed a breach of Privilege, and it seems to me definitely necessary for our future guidance that this should be properly understood. It may be that the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges will have a word to say on this matter presently, and when I have heard him I shall no doubt be better informed than I appear to be at the present moment, but I would like the House to give me their attention for a very short time while I go very briefly through the complaint which was brought against the hon. Member. The first of the items is as follows:
Speaking at Cathcart on Sunday, John McGovern protested against the secrecy under which the Premier's review of the war had been given in Parliament.
I cannot find anything in that sentence which can be declared to be a breach of Privilege. The next statement is:
'If that speech had been given in public, he (the hon. Member for Shettleston) said, 'The I.L.P. would have won this election.'
That is a matter of opinion. It could only have been decided if it had been known what was in the speech, which was apparently not made known, what would


have been the result of such an election. After that:
Mr. Churchill's review was made in secret, not to prevent Hitler knowing anything, but to prevent the public of Britain knowing everything.
There is no breach of Privilege there that I can see.
In their public speeches Ministers had lied to the people and deluded them.
That is a statement which most Members of this House might not approve of, but there again I cannot see where a breach of Privilege appears. So we come to the last clause in the complaint:
'I am able to say here, because it has been publicly announced,' continued McGovern, that during each of the last two months over 800,000 tons of shipping have gone to the bottom of the ocean."'
We have heard what the hon. Member has to say about that himself; I have no personal recollection of what was said in Secret Session, but in any case I cannot find in the Report of the Committee of Privileges that their decision is based on that particular clause. There does not seem to be any suggestion that that is the reason why they have found him technically guilty of a breach of Privilege. This may seem to be rather a small point in view of the fact that he has nevertheless been exonerated, but its importance to my mind is this: We want to know where we are in the future, and it seems to me that if a Member is found guilty, even technically, of a breach of Privilege, it should be made quite clear in what respect he was found guilty and in exactly what details he committed that breach of Privilege. I can find no information of that kind in the Report, which I have studied.
The only part of the finding of the Committee of Privileges which seems to have any bearing is in this sense. They appear to have declared that the opinion given by the Prime Minister in answer to two Parliamentary Questions, which was broadly on the lines that Members of this House going out of a Secret Session were entitled at any rate to convey whether they had been favourably or unfavourably impressed by the Debate, is not a correct decision, and that no Member has the right to do that. I do not think that any Member would expect, even though the Prime Minister is or was a member of the Committee of Privileges, that an answer which he made spontaneously to a Question in the House should be taken as an attempt to lay down a considered

decision as to what would or would not be a breach of Privilege. But for all practical purposes, and for the conduct of the Business of this House, it appears to me that the decision which the Prime Minister gave was a far more practical and workable decision than the one which now appears to be laid down by the Committee of Privileges.
The one laid down now by the Committee of Privileges, as I take it, is practically to the effect that once this House has entered into Secret Session, not only must nothing be disclosed which has been spoken in that Secret Session, but that not even the subject matter or even the subject concerning which the Secret Session is held, nor the impression made upon a Member, can be disclosed. In fact, any kind of disclosure, and not only any kind of disclosure, but the giving of any kind of impression gathered from a Secret Debate, would apparently now become a breach of Privilege. I want to submit to the House that if we agree to that, we shall thereby make the working of any Secret Session quite impossible. It is within my own knowledge that on occasions following Secret Sessions—and such occasions must continually occur— quite unconsciously and without any intention words have been spoken which, in accordance with that strict interpretation, would involve a Member in at least a technical breach of Privilege.
There is another and possibly still more important point, except that I admit that it is a very remote contingency and not one of which I should ever suspect the present Government of wishing to take advantage, and it is a matter concerning the procedure of the House of Commons of which I think we ought to take some note. Suppose that a Government at any time is involved in some action which not only is not published but which that Government is particularly desirous shall at no time and under no circumstances become public. All that they would have to do would be to initiate a Debate in Secret Session and give the information to the House, not because they wanted the House to have it, but because by giving it to the House in secret they would then ensure that it could no longer be made public. That might be stretching the point a little far, and I do not suggest that any Government which we have had recently, or any Government we are likely to have in the future, would do


such a thing, but in dealing with these matters all these considerations and possibilities must be taken into account. The reason why I, personally, cannot agree with the Committee of Privileges in this decision is that it leaves us in a most unsatisfactory position. It does not detail for us what the real breach of Privilege was. It leaves us completely in the dark as regards that, and in a most uncomfortable situation to what our position may be in the future.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I will not detain the House for more than a moment. I do not intend to follow my hon. Friend in everything he said, but I would like to call the attention of the House to this: Much of the difficulty arises because we have so many Secret Sessions. I understand that in the last war there were only four. I do not know how many there have been in this war, but the number must run into double figures. This finding of the Committee of Privileges really means that, having listened to a Secret Session, nobody who has heard that Secret Session can, at any time, make any comment upon the subject which was discussed without being in jeopardy of being charged with having disclosed what went on at that Secret Session. If there are to be a large number of Secret Sessions on a large number of subjects connected with the war it is not foolish to suggest that the time will come when it will be practically impossible to discuss outside this House any subject without it being possible to link it up with something which has been discussed in some Secret Session.
I think that the Prime Minister's answer to the Question showed admirable common sense. It is quite obvious that no one can listen to what is said in Secret Session and go away uninfluenced in his mind in one way or another. There must sub-consciously be an influence. We have now reached the position that someone has only to suggest that the form of words used reminds them of something said in a Secret Session for the individual who has used those words to find himself before the Committee of Privileges. I think that the House might give its attention to this matter. Secret Sessions have grown out of all reason. If we are to reach the position where Members are afterwards going to be hampered in the

discussion of public affairs because of a haunting fear that somehow, somewhere, sub-consciously, they may be referring to a matter which has been discussed in Secret Session, then I think the sooner this House shuts up the better.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words, because I think there is some misunderstanding in the minds of my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last and my hon. Friend who spoke before him. The principle to which this Report refers was a principle laid down, and approved by this House, in an earlier case which arose out of a paragraph in the "Observer" newspaper, and it is set out in this Report:
… and accounts which purport to state the good or bad impression created in the Debate or which in any way, however general, refer to what took place in the proceedings are a breach of Privilege.
In the present case we are applying these words "to a case in which there was an express reference to a Secret Session. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) was suggesting that a man might be put in jeopardy when he made no reference to a particular Secret Session but where what had taken place had possibly affected, or was reflected in, his general attitude. That is not this case, nor is it so in the case which was being dealt with in the "Observer" publication. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) said he did not quite follow the Report, but I think if he will look at the second two paragraphs in which the Secret Session was referred to—that
if that speech had been given in public the I.L.P. would have won this election,
and that
Mr. Churchill's review was made in secret not to prevent Hitler knowing anything, but to prevent the public of Britain knowing everything
these are two statements from which inferences can be drawn, and in a sense are bound to be drawn, as to the general nature of what was said, and the impression created on the speaker's mind. It was for that reason, following the previous Ruling, that while entirely exonerating the hon. Member for Shettleston of any intention to infringe the Rules of the House we considered that there was a technical breach.

Mr. Maxton: The previous Ruling to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman


man refers was not a Ruling about Members of the House.

The Attorney-General: That point is dealt with in the Report. We say in the Report that we did not intend it "to be limited," that we intended to lay down a general principle. If there was any doubt, this Report makes the position clear.

Sir I. Albery: The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a paragraph about the hon. Member for Shettleston saying that if the Prime Minister's speech had been given in public the I.L.P. would have won the by-election. That, I take it, is the real paragraph on which a technical breach was committed?

The Attorney-General: That paragraph and the following one.

Sir I. Albery: Supposing the hon. Member has said that had the speech been given in public, there would have been no strike last week, would that be a breach of Privilege?

The Attorney-General: If he had said that if a speech of the Prime Minister, made in Secret Session, had been made in public there would have been no strike, that would be giving a general impression of what took place at a Secret Session.

Sir A. Southby: Supposing a Member said that if only the public could have heard the magnificent speech of the Prime Minister, they would have been enthralled and enthused, would proceedings have been taken?

The Attorney-General: Whether any proceedings were taken would be a matter for the House.

Sir A. Southby: But such a statement would be a breach of Privilege?

The Attorney-General: Certainly, and does it not show that the House was wise in accepting this Rule? Supposing that someone said that everyone was completely happy, some other Member is entitled to contradict that, and, as stated in the Report, a controversy would thus be started which could not really be resolved without disclosing what the House had ordered to be secret. Our attitude as the Committee of Privileges is to do our best to protect the Privileges of the House and to say to the House what we think their orders involve. With regard to the

answer given by the Prime Minister to questions on this matter, as we point out, we think that two possible constructions can be placed on them. In paragraph (3) we say:
The answers can also be read as meaning that Members in their general presentation of their own views will necessarily be influenced by what they have heard in Secret Session. On this view the words would not justify any express reference to a Secret Session as having created in the mind of the speaker confidence or the reverse.
That, I think, is the distinction. I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. Of course, there have been a number of Secret Sessions, and though we have very clearly in our minds the information which was given in them, and are unlikely inadvertently to disclose that, obviously our general attitude, whether of optimism or pessimism or otherwise, must be affected by what we have heard in Secret Session. That is inevitable. So long as we do not refer to a particular Secret Session and relate that reference either to some feeling of elation or the reverse, we are not doing anything contrary to the Rules.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Report.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 4 (Postponement of laying before Parliament of statements of payments and receipts, etc.).

Mr. Garro Jones: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out "fifty-six or section."
The House will observe that there are four successive Amendments on the Order Paper in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I do not propose to detain the House by speaking at length on each of them. I shall say what I have to say on the first, as the others are consequential. The only point at issue is whether the statement of contributions and payments under Part I of the Act should be published annually by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The effect of these


Amendments, if they are accepted, will be that in November of this year the first statement will be published. These Amendments were proposed in another form on the Committee stage; they are now proposed in a form which commends itself more to the Parliamentary draftsman.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to second the Amendment.
I gathered from remarks which were made by the Chancellor on the last occasion this matter was discussed that the accounts will not necessarily be published in November, but that they could be published before then.

Mr. Garro Jones: The only point is that it is obligatory on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish them by November. If he publishes them before, everybody will be all the more pleased.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): We accept these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 17, leave out "provide," and insert "provides."

In line 19, leave out "Part I and."

In line 19, leave out "respectively."—[Mr. Garro Jones.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Amendments relating to the principal Act generally.)

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, at the end, to insert:
5. Legal rentcharge on a hereditament to be a proprietary interest therein.

(1) A rentcharge (including a fee farm rent) subsisting at law or capable of subsisting at law, and not being an interest or charge arising under a settlement within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, shall be a proprietary interest for the purposes of the pro- visions of the principal Act relating to payments in respect of war damage under Part I thereof.
(2) In accordance with the preceding subparagraph there shall be added at the end of the definition in Section ninety-five of the expression 'proprietary interest' a provision that that expression includes, in relation to a hereditament, such a rentcharge as aforesaid subsisting in the land comprised in the hereditament or in any part of that land, that is to say, issuing thereout or charged thereon.
(3) This paragraph shall not apply to Scotland.

(4) In the application of this paragraph to Northern Ireland, for any reference to the Settled Land Act, 1925, there shall be substituted a reference to the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890.

6. Superiority and ground annual on a hereditament to be a proprietary interest therein.

(1) The estate or interest of the superior of any land comprised in a hereditament or or of any part of such land and the right of the creditor in a security by way of ground annual over such land or part shall each be a proprietary interest for the purposes of the provisions of the principal Act relating to payments in respect of war damage under Part I thereof.
(2) This paragraph shall apply to Scotland only."

This Amendment deals with a matter which was raised on the Committee Stage. It was suggested that rentcharges, which are common in Northern England and the North of Ireland, should be entitled in certain cases to participate in value payments. My right hon. Friend promised to consider the point. He has come to the conclusion that the matter should be dealt with; but it has proved somewhat complicated, and the Amendment which is on the Paper does not provide leally for the various points. After a very short statement, I will recommend a certain course to the House. It might be useful if I briefly stated the points which have arisen. The first is, should a rentcharge participate only in cases where its amount is greater than the annual value of the hereditament after the damage—should it be entitled to participate merely by saying, "We are not covered as many times over as we used to be," or should it be necessary for the annual value of the hereditament to have sunk below the rentcharge? The second point is, should the rentcharge be treated as a claim against the freehold, and not against the property as a whole, on the ground that the interest of a lessee ought not to be affected?

When these rentcharges first arise, there is a personal liability against the grantor. Should that be taken into account, and how should it be done? Another point arises when it is decided that the rentcharges have lost value owing to the damage. Should the share of the value payment then be taken in perma-ment reduction of the rentcharge, and should you arrive at the sum by taking into account the fact that buildings may arise and the rentcharge be fully covered in future? Lastly, what are you to do


when it is a condition of the value payment that there should be rebuilding? Those are the difficulties. Like all difficulties, they can be surmounted. My right hon. Friend accepts the proposal in principle, and the matter is being gone into with the Commission and expert valuers, but, in view of the fact that we have not been able to get the thing in order; I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, so that we may deal with the matter comprehensively in another place.

Major Milner: rose—

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I might postpone my application for leave to withdraw until my hon. and gallant Friend has had an opportunity of speaking.

Major Milner: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the sympathetic view they have taken on this matter, which I had the honour, along with other Members, to raise. Frankly, I was rather doubtful about the efficacy of the Amendment which the Attorney-General has moved to do all that was necessary, having regard to the very technical nature of this matter. However, I understand that the Government will bring in the appropriate Amendment in another place. It may be that, in the meantime, those who are responsible for Members of this House taking action will be able to help the Government draftsman in the matter. We take note of the observations the Attorney-General has made; and if we can submit any suggestions to him, no doubt they will be considered. We are, of course, agreeable to the Amendment being withdrawn, on the understanding which has been given.

The Attorney-General: I formally beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, in view of changes which are to be made and of our intention to move another Amendment in another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, to leave out, "charge or lien for securing money or money's worth," and to insert "mortgage or floating charge."
This is really a clarifying Amendment. It is true that it occurred to us as being

particularly necessary for clarifying purposes in the light of the fact that rent-charges were to be brought in, but the intention has always been that these words should cover only mortgage or floating charges. There might, however, be doubts in people's minds, and we desire to make it quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 11, line 34, to leave out "made," and to insert "executed."
There are one or two passages in the Bill in which reference is made to a will made on a certain date. A recent decision in the Courts, which is under appeal, might be regarded as throwing some doubt on whether the word "made" did, as we intended, refer to the date when the will was executed, and in order that no such doubt shall arise this and the following Amendment are proposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page.11, line 35, leave out "made," and insert "executed."—[The Attorney-General.]

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 12, line 39, to leave out from "damage," to "then," in line 40.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest (Major Mills) raised a question on Second Reading of which I would remind hon. Members. He asked whether powers would be taken to base contributions on some up-to-date assessment, and called attention to the fact that many properties have changed hands since 3rd September, 1939, which is the basic date for war damage contribution, and that Schedule A assessments have been altered in consequence, in some cases upwards, and in some cases downwards. The Attorney-General, in reply, said it would be quite wrong if the contribution went up and down according to the fluctuations of valuation during the war because they were capital contributions in respect of the property at risk during the war period. Now the effect of Subsection (2) of Section 30 of the Act is to raise the contribution where a higher Schedule A assessment is made by reason of an alteration in the condition of the land through improving it, or building upon it or, as far as may be seen from


the wording of the Section, through any cause at all, which, I presume, covers, for example, the natural growth of trees and shrubs and the prolonged or repeated efforts of a gardener, or a house painter. Therefore, in spite of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the evil of contributions going up and down during the war, here we have cases where they go up.
I come now to paragraph 10 of the First Schedule of the present Bill. Here it is recognised that where the condition of the land has altered otherwise than through war damage—and I make no complaint about the words "otherwise than through war damage" and—these are the words which I propose to leave out—"by the destruction or demolition of buildings or works or parts thereof," and a new and lower Schedule A assessment is made, that new assessment may form the basis of War Damage Contribution as from this year. So now we have cases also in which the contributions go down. They appear to be a class rather more restricted than the class in which contributions go up. The purpose of my Amendment is to remove that restriction and admit of a lower Schedule A assessment being obtained and hence a lower contribution charged when the condition of the property has deteriorated through any cause other than war damage. That would appear to be fair and equitable. I cannot see the justification for differentiating between properties which are improved through any cause and properties which deteriorate through any cause. I cannot see why if property owners always pay more for improvements they should only sometimes pay less for the reverse, and indeed, the reverse is very often beyond their control.
I will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House one actual example, which, I believe, is typical of many. One out of a row of houses, exactly the same, except for the colour of the paint, was let for profit in 1939–40. The Schedule A assessment and the war damage contribution were doubled. Subsequently the letting terminates and the Schedule A assessment reverts to normal, that is, to the same as for each house in the row, but the War Damage Contribution remains at the doubled figure and it will continue to do so unless this House alters the Act, or unless the owner takes

advantage of this Clause and notes the words which the Attorney-General used in explaining it. He said, on the Committee stage, that it was designed to cover cases in which the actual physical configuration of the structure had been altered by fire, demolition or some other cause since the outbreak of war. It must be very far from the intention of the House that householders in the sort of predicament which I have outlined should bring their minds to bear on what may be done under this provision to secure a reduction in contribution. I can foresee a whole series of most undignified actions being resorted to by frustrated and bewildered householders up and down the country. How much better it would be to obtain a new assessment and quietly and reasonably to proffer it, claiming an alteration in the condition of the property through natural depreciation, for example, in order to secure a reduction to an appropriate, normal and justifiable War Damage Contribution. I hope my right hon. Friend will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment. I will ask leave to withdraw it, if he can suggest some more suitable means of righting this particular piece of injustice and removing the general anomaly which exists under the principal Act at present and as amended hitherto by this Bill.

Colonel Mills: I beg to second the Amendment.
I was not aware that it arose out of a remark I made on the Second Reading so I had no opportunity of discussing it with my Noble Friend, but it seems he has made out a good case for righting this injustice, because, if war damage assessment is to be increased when Schedule A assessment goes up, so it ought to be decreased when Schedule A assessment falls.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): My recollection is not good enough to enable me to say whether my Noble Friend, who has been on military service, was able to attend all our Debates on the original Act. I do not think he was here but if he had been I think we would have realised that this is not an entirely new point. What we had to do when the Bill was first introduced and what, indeed, Parliament agreed to do, was to find some sort of basis on which contributions were to be


raised, and we decided that the Schedule A valuation was a reasonable valuation to adopt. There were practical reasons for that. It was, of course, impossible in war-time to make a valuation of the whole country's assets. It would have taken up an enormous amount of time and trouble and would have meant that we should not have been able to get in contributions. So Parliament, under the original Act, agreed that contributions should be based on Schedule A. While accepting that as an essential part of the scheme it was, however, admitted—and always has been admitted—that there were bound to be all sorts of anomalies and inequalities. Parliament recognised that but said that rather than have no scheme at all they would accept this, in spite of some of the difficulties which were bound to emerge. I think my Noble Friend must bear that fact in mind because it has coloured all the discussions on this Bill and the principal Act since the scheme was introduced.
That being so, the only cases in which we have taken value payments on Schedule A 1939 values for contributory purposes have been those where there is alteration in structure. If my Noble Friend will reflect upon this he will see there is no unfairness in it, for the reason that where property is physically unchanged there is no real difficulty in accepting the Tightness of the 1939 Schedule A charge. After all, what happens if there is damage? If there is a cost-of-works payment, then payment is made according to what is the cost of the work. But if it is a question of a value payment under the Act, payment is calculated by reference in the general formula to the values as they were in March, 1939. That being so, it is reasonable that the contribution should also be levied on that basis and should not be altered. If you altered it as my Noble Friend suggests you would still get value payments on the 1939 values but that would hardly be a reasonable proposition. He instanced the case of a house in a row which might have been let, and then ceased to be let because the owner went to live in it with the result, as I understand it, that there was a change downwards in Schedule A valuation. It is true that, as far as that house is concerned, its letting value may have altered, but not its value by reference to the 1939 rates of compensation. We base

the whole payment on compensation out of formulas arising from the 1939 figures.

Viscount Hinchingbroke: The point is this. Suppose there is only one house out of a whole series of houses which are of exactly the same kind. In the present situation one out of, say, eight or 10 occupiers is paying an increased war damage contribution, merely because his house was let a year before.

Captain Crookshank: I think if I develop the case my Noble Friend will see that there is something to be said for the other side. The point I was trying to make was that while there may be alteration in the letting value, the fact remains that if a value payment arose as a result of damage, that value payment would have reflected in it the March,1939, values and because of that, contributions are projected backwards to the 1939 Schedule A valuation. Although there is a change in letting value there is no change affecting the real value of the house. My Noble Friend says that in a row of houses there is a change in letting value because the lease of one has come to an end and the owner has occupied it. That is true, but it is only one instance of what this House and Parliament accepted in this rough and ready scheme. The alternative to accepting such a proposition is that you would have to go on revaluing the whole time and Parliament accepted the view that, if that were done, there would never be a scheme at all.
In one or two cases there may be hard luck, but my Noble Friend is in error in saying that there could be any upward revision during the war. He rather implied that the Government were getting the best of both worlds, because if there were an upward revision, we should get higher contributions under Schedule A. That is a misapprehension. There is no upward revision. There is downward revision, if there is a change of circumstances during the year, but there cannot be an upward revision unless it is done by a general revaluation. There has been no general revaluation during the war and there will not be one. Therefore, it is not right to say that we shall benefit by increased contributions as a result of revaluation. To that extent unfairness is not quite so extreme as he fears. If he asks, as I think he did, that contributions for a house let to a tenant in a row of houses should be the same as that for a


house in which the owner lives, because the whole row is exactly the same, then of course we come back to the same position. It would involve reopening the contributory value of all the houses, and one would be led naturally on to the claim that the charge for similar houses let to tenants should be the same. In point of fact, similar houses are not necessarily let to tenants for the same rent, and, therefore, you come back to the point that we should require to have a complete reassessment. We have to remember that the Rent Restriction Act does bring its influence into the question of Schedule A valuation.
While one admits there are cases as between neighbour and neighbour where one person may be paying a higher contribution than another, the answer to that is we should have to have such a general revaluation that we could not proceed with the scheme at all. The scheme was brought in as a relief—a very welcome relief—to property-owners, and they accepted it On the basis that it was the best which could be done in a rough and ready way. I am prepared to admit there may be hard cases, or cases which appear to be hard, but on the other hand the fact that the payments are related to March, 1939, is not such a hardship as it would seem. If it is a hardship, I am afraid owners of property must tolerate it to the best of their ability, in view of the general advantages which flow to all property-owners, if their houses happen to be damaged. I, therefore, ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Sir Robert Tasker: The Minister has not quite grasped the whole of the situation. The House agreed to have valuation at a certain date. If additions are made, the Government say there will be increased contributions which no one can say is unfair. But where a building is not rendered uninhabitable by having, say, an annexe destroyed, it seems unfair that the owner should be called upon to contribute the full value. I am perfectly willing to give my right hon. and gallant Friend chapter and verse for a case in which the destruction was such that two floors of a building were rendered unusable and the rent of those two floors was £1,750 a year, and it seems unfair to say to the owner of that property that he shall pay the full amount of insurance in

spite of the fact that he has lost this rent. I suggest that the owner of the property should be able to claim from the local authority a re-assessment of his property. It is not a question of a few pounds a year; it is a considerable sum which is involved, because the man had to pay not only last year and this year but for three more years or five years in all.

Mr. Bellenger: The Financial Secretary's answer was not quite watertight. I can follow the argument that, where the value payment is based upon the value in March, 1939, then, in a rough and ready scheme, it is only equitable to take the Schedule A basis of September, 1939. Mention was made by the Mover of the Amendment of up-revision. I gather from the reply that there is no upward revision of Schedule A assessments, on which War Damage Contribution can be based, but that all War Damage Contribution is based on the Schedule A assessment of September, 1939. Does the Financial Secretary mean that?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir; if there is no physical alteration. If there is physical alteration to a building, there can be an upward revaluation, but, if there is not, it cannot be done, except by general revaluation.

Mr. Bellenger: Let us take a case in which reconstruction took place before the Ministry of Works and Buildings imposed their limitation about doing repairs without their licence. Suppose it took place after the war broke out. If there is physical reconstruction, immediately there is reassessment of the property. My right hon. and gallant Friend says that in those circumstances the War Damage Commission want a bigger contribution based on the re-assessment of that reconstructed property. He also says, reverting to the War Damage Act, 1941, that the owner of such reconstructed property will not get a valuation payment, if his premises are demolished, on the reconstruction value, even though he is paying War Damage Contribution on a revised assessment. Let us consider what that means. The War Damage Commission want the best of both worlds. They want higher War Damage Contribution based on the higher Schedule A assessment, but they are not prepared to pay more than the March, 1939, value of the property.
What ever the merits of this Amendment may be—and I am not altogether in sympathy with the purposes of the Mover—this imposes a hardship on many owners of property. I agree, where we have a rough and ready method such as this, we must accept its implications. It will be very difficult, as was suggested, to pay contributions on the capital value of property—some hon. Members suggested on a former occasion taking fire insurance values as a basis. I suggest the Government ought to consider the point I have brought to the notice of my right hon. and gallant Friend, namely, that if the Amendment cannot be accepted, a higher rate of contribution should not be demanded merely because there happens to be a re-assessment when physical reconstruction has taken place. As to a general re-assessment, I would remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1930, the income and out-goings of properties are taken into account by Inspectors of Taxes and Income Tax is reduced according to the net profit shown. My right hon. and gallant Friend is not quite aright when he says there is no re-assessment, because re-assessment, although it is not called by that name, is taking place all the time by the Inland Revenue Department. My-purpose is to draw attention to the fact that owners of property who may have had their assessment altered after September, 1939, will have to pay higher rates of contribution, although they will not receive higher rates of compensation.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 18, to leave out "since the beginning of," and to insert "at any time during."

This Amendment deals with condemned buildings and makes the paragraph mean what I said it meant when I referred to the matter during the Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, at the end, to insert:
(3) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for the, references to the Housing Act, 1936, and to orders confirmed by the Minister of Health there shall be respectively substituted references to the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, and to orders confirmed by the Secretary of State:

Provided that for references to Section twenty-eight and to Sub-section (3) of Section thirty-six of the first mentioned Act there shall be respectively substituted references to Section sixty-one and Sub-section (2) of Section seventeen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935.
(4) In the application of this paragraph to Northern Ireland for the references to the Housing Act, 1936, and the Minister of Health there shall be substituted respectively references to Part II of the Planning and Housing Act (Northern Ireland), 1931, and to the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland, and the references to a compulsory purchase order shall not apply.
All these paragraphs granting relief from contribution in the case of condemned properties make the necessary adaptions in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 14, line 39, leave out "creating a settlement."

In page 17, line 35, at the end, insert:
21. Verbal amendment of Section 46 (2).
In the reference in sub-section (2) of Section forty-six to a testamentary disposition made before occurrence of war damage, the word 'executed' shall be substituted for the word 'made'."—[The Attorney-General.]

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move in page 18, line 13, at the end, to insert:
22. Power of Commissioners of Crown Lands to apply capital for dealing with war damage.

(1) The Treasury may, by any general or special directions given by them, authorise the Commissioners of Crown Lands to charge as a principal sum to the account of the capital of the land revenues of the Crown the costs, charges and expenses incurred by them in the execution, on and for the benefit of lands under their management, of works for any of the following purposes, or in any operation incident to or necessary or proper for carrying into effect any of those purposes, or for securing the full benefit of any of those works or purposes, that is to say:—

(a) the repair of war damage;
(b) the re-construction of buildings or works which have sustained war damage;
(c) the construction of buildings or works in substitution for buildings or works which have sustained war damage, whether on the same site or on a different site.

(2) The Treasury may, by any general or special directions given by them, authorise the said Commissioners to enter into and carry into effect arrangements for the payment by them of, or for the making by them of advances in respect of, any costs, charges or expenses incurred as aforesaid by other persons, and to charge as aforesaid payments and advances made pursuant to the arrangements.


(3) The Treasury may, if they think fit, direct that any sum paid out of capital in accordance with any such authorisation as aforesaid shall be repaid out of the income of the land revenues of the Crown within such time and by such number of instalments of such amounts respectively as may be specified in the directions, so however that, where the said Commissioners are entitled to a payment under the principal Act in respect of the war damage in question, this sub-paragraph shall have effect only as respects the excess (if any) of the sums so paid out of capital over the amount of that payment (excluding any part of it which represents interest)."

This Amendment dealing with the powers of the Commissioners of Crown Lands is due to the fact that the Commissioners are not at present entitled to meet any expenses of repair to, or replacement of, buildings under their charge out of capital money. The Amendment enables them to do that with the consent of the Treasury.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 19, line 5, to leave out from "tenancy," to the end of line 9, and to insert:
granted for a term limited to expire, or subject to a right of the landlord to determine the tenancy, on, or at a time or within a period expiring not later than seven years after, any such occasion as the following, that is to say, the termination of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged or of hostilities in any such war or of the emergency mentioned in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, or any other Act of the present Parliament, the occurrence of any event likely to occur on or in connection with such termination, or any similar occasion in whatsoever words described.
We desire to make it clear that tenancies which will end with the duration of the war should be treated as short tenancies. We got it wrong the first time because we found that some people were making tenancies for the duration of the war and 99 years afterwards. Under our original definition that became a short tenancy. We think we have got it right now.

Amendment agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE (Amendments as to ultimate incidence of Contributions under Part I of the Principal Act).

Sir Harold Webbe: I beg to move, in page 21, line 22, at the end, to insert:
or
(c) the property comprises more than one contributory property, but each of the contributory

properties is used, or suitable for use, for residential purposes, and has a contributory value not exceeding thirty-five pounds, and where the advances secured by the mortgage have been the subject of a guarantee under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section ninety-two of the Housing Act, 1925, or paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section ninety-one of the Housing Act, 1936, and the guarantee has been the subject of an undertaking under Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, or Section one hundred and ten of the Housing Act, 1936, or where the mortgage is to a bank or other financial institution owned by a municipal corporation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I should remind the hon. Gentleman that there has been a general discussion on the matter of mortgages and this discussion must be limited to the Amendment, from that point of view.

Sir H. Webbe: I know that the matter was considered and discussed to some extent on an earlier stage of the Bill, but, so far, the only reply that we have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he thinks it impossible to distinguish between housing associations and other bodies. I think the distinction can and should be made. I have deliberately worded the Amendment in the narrowest possible terms because I did not want to touch upon the larger issue, which has already been considered and on which the House has taken a decision, nor did I want even to touch upon the new anomaly introduced in the amending Bill, by which a distinction is drawn between a property-owner who builds houses for working-class occupation, one on top of another, and one who builds them in a much more hygienic way alongside each other.
The work of these housing associations has been welcomed and encouraged by successive Parliaments, and by no one more whole-heartedly than my right hon. Friend himself. In the Act of 1936, for which he was so very largely responsible, the position of these housing associations and their work was summarised and certain very important steps were taken in regard to it. Parliament decided to give them very considerable assistance and translated encouragement into very practical help. They authorised local authorities to use their compulsory powers for the acquisition of sites for the operations of these housing associations. The local authorities were authorised to give them direct financial assistance and guarantees,


which were backed up by the Government itself, by virtue of which the associations were able to borrow money on far more favourable terms, both as to interest and as to amount in relation to value, than were available to other bodies.
Naturally, and very properly there was a quid pro quo for this assistance. The housing associations had to build to plans approved by the local authorities and in some instances the rents were actually subject to their approval. Throughout, there was an understanding, which I believe has been honourably observed, that rents would be so fixed that the housing associations would not be left for any margin in their finance other than what was prudent, purely as a safety precaution. In other words, they were intended to function, and have in fact functioned, as non-profit making undertakings. In so far as they are non-profit making undertakings—and I believe that to be generally the case—they are at once differentiated from those ordinarily engaged in estate development. The ordinary property-owner is assumed to be making profits out of his property and to have other funds available to meet his War Damage Contributions. That does not apply to a very large number of these housing associations, which have done such valuable service in the solution of the working class housing problem. If they can get no relief, such as is already given under head (a) many of them will find themselves in an extremely difficult financial position. They may well have to cease their operations and see all the valuable public work they have done stultified, and they may be forced to come upon the guarantees which have been given them with the full approval and indeed encouragement of this House by local authorities.
I suggest that the case of these housing associations is clearly defined. There can be no doubt which of them fall within the terms of the Amendment and which fall outside, and that as a matter of public policy, apart altogether from the question of justice and fairness, housing associations should have the relief as against their mortgagees which is granted under head (a). I am sorry that the effect of this Amendment, if it is carried, should be to place a further burden very largely on the building societies. The building societies have the honourable distinction among the big financial interests concerned in

property that they are standing up to their obligations in this matter, and I am sorry to suggest for a moment that a bigger load should be added to those who have already done their duty fully and properly. I feel, however, that from the point of view of public policy the value of the work of housing associations is such that they deserve this consideration, and as a matter of justice I ask the Chancellor to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is little I need add to the admirable statement of the case which has been made by my hon. Friend the Mover, but I want to make two points. Suppose these housing associations had decided to build flats instead of houses, then, under the Amendment which was passed on the Committee stage, they would have had recourse to their mortgagees, which they have not as the Bill stands because they have built houses. If I am right in my interpretation, that is a grave injustice to housing associations which built houses. Circumstances vary and flats may be appropriate in densely populated areas where land is expensive, while houses may be appropriate elsewhere, and it is a great hardship on housing associations which decided to build houses instead of flats. There is no doubt that the effects of the War Damage Act on housing associations have been very serious to many of them. Theoretically they could meet their contributions out of capital, but many of them have no capital. They have expended it in the provision of dwellings, and it is hardly necessary for me to point out what a great contribution they have made towards solving the housing problem during the years since the last war. The more efficiently and effectively the housing associations have worked, the less capital they have and the less they are able to meet these contributions, which are made substantial, out of capital. Therefore, they are driven to meet their contributions out of revenue.
Where assistance has been granted to associations by local authorities—and as chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council I have had the privilege on many occasions of granting financial assistance to these bodies—a close check was put on the rents which they could charge. They were cut down to a minimum. We went through the


accounts and made sure before a contribution was made that they were making no profit as a result of their letting. Therefore, the best of the housing associations have no capital out of which to meet their War Damage Contribution and they are not also to meet it out of revenue. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has placed a heavy burden on the associations and put them in a difficult position. In days to come I believe that housing associations will have an even greater contribution to make to solving the problems of post-war housing, and nothing that we do should have the effect of crippling their potential efforts in the post-war period. My right hon. Friend made very few concessions on the Committee stage of this Bill. When the original Act was before the House I had the privilege of sincerely complimenting the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary on the reasonable way in which they had met many of the Amendments which were put down. I hope I may have the opportunity, again, of complimenting my right hon. Friend on a concession under this provision. I can assure him it would be one of the most popular concessions he could possibly make. It would be a great contribution to the housing problems that we shall have to face after the war.

Sir Percy Harris: I want to support my two hon. Friends, with whom I co-operated for many years in the work of housing in London. I endorse everything that they have said about the great value of the housing associations. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not need persuading, because the housing association is more or less his child. The associations were in the line of thought on which he was working when he was dealing with housing problems as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and afterwards as Minister. I happen to know one association, the Bethnal Green Housing Association, which is, perhaps, one of the best examples. It is associated with my brother and extends its ramifications over Hackney, Shoreditch and the Borough of Stepney. It really achieved remarkable results with practically no capital and it works on very small margins. It tackled problems like most of the associations which local authorities were inclined

to avoid. It particularly catered for difficult cases of very poor people and dealt with special problems outside the purview of the ordinary municipal authorities. All three parties in the House are giving their blessing to the Amendment. There was a time when some people did not look with too friendly an eye on what they regarded as private enterprise. Housing associations, however, combine the virtues of private enterprise and public service, and it would be a graceful thing if the right hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to make some special concession to them showing that the State views their activities with special favour. If their work is to continue, they have to attract money from benevolent persons. At a time like this, when taxes are high there is great competition for the limited supplies of money. A gesture from the right hon. Gentleman at this moment would be a great encouragement to the splendid work of these good men and women who gave their services and their cash for these interesting housing experiments.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. I do so because I feel that the Government have gone out of their way to encourage these associations, and have framed the financial machinery under which their schemes could be carried out. The rentals were fixed, having regard to what the outgoings Were under the conditions then existing, and at a time when taxation was very different from what it is now. War has brought about a complete change, and I feel that the Government are under an obligation to have some consideration for these associations, which they themselves were largely responsible for creating. Apart from that consideration I have, perhaps, a wider view at the back of my mind. When we were debating the Amendments concerning the mortgagee making a contribution towards the War Damage premiums it was stated by the Chancellor that the Government wanted to encourage financial sources with a view to the future, but financial sources do not matter if there is no building. I hope that we shall frame legislation which, when the war is over, will encourage building whether by societies or by ordinary private enterprise. We do not want to find ourselves in the position in which we


were after the last war, when private enterprise had been so discouraged that we had to depend upon local authorities, who were building at a cost of £1,200 houses such as private enterprise had pre viously built for £250. From the point of view of the future, when this war is over and building must start again— and if the war continues for another 18 months we shall be no less than 2,000,000 houses short—I—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have asked hon. Members to confine themselves to the Amendment.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I apologise, Sir, if I have gone outside the boundaries of your decision, but I will conclude by saying that I give my wholehearted support to this Amendment.

Major Milner: I wish to support this Amendment very strongly indeed. I ought, perhaps, to declare that at one time I had some direct interest in some of these housing associations, along with other Members of the House, and it is conceivable that some professional and other fees are due to me now from some of them, so to that extent I must declare my personal interest, particularly as any advantage secured to the associations by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might conceivably affect that situation. I want to press this Amendment for another reason altogether, and one which has not been put as strongly as I think it ought to have been. To the best of my recollection the greater number of these associations were created under the provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933. That was brought in by the then Minister of Health—at that time Sir Hilton Young, now Lord Kennet. My own party were at that time opposed to the proposals in that Bill, because we thought the houses were taken away from public control and were to a large extent handed over to private enterprise. Nevertheless, the Bill received a large measure of qualified support even from Members of the party who sit on this side of the House, qualified support also from the Liberals and, of course, enthusiastic support from the hon. Gentlemen who sat behind the then Minister of Health. He pressed very strongly for the setting up of these particular associations.
I have had only a short time in which to look up the matter, but I see that in his Second Reading speech the then Minister indicated that he proposed to carry out a vigorous campaign to encourage the formation of these associations, and the whole of his Second Reading speech and some of his Committee speeches are bespattered with urges to the country, to builders, to building societies and others to set up these associations. It must be clear, therefore, that the majority of these associations were created not merely with the good-will but with the very definite encouragement of the Government, of which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was, no doubt, a member, though at the moment I do not recollect what office he ornamented.

Sir Herbert Williams: He was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health.

Major Milner: No, I think the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. However that may be, it is clear that the Government of that day did all they could to encourage the formation of these associations, and for that reason alone the right hon. Gentleman must, I think, accept the responsibility of ensuring to them such benefits as are given to the individual owner-occupier. Very largely these associations were of a charitable or certainly of a public utility nature. It is my recollection that the interest was limited, certainly the rents were extremely limited; and in cases of which I know something the fact that the rents were so limited has been the reason why the associations did not do very well, and why many of them are in difficulties to-day, difficulties which have been added to by the imposition of the contribution which they have to make under the War Damage Act.
There is another argument which I would urge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has hitherto argued that it was not desired to give the advantages of the War Damage Act to commercial propositions, that he preferred, if possible, to confine to owner-occupiers the assistance in the matter of contributions from mortgagees—for the most part, at any rate. He did not think those who undertook large housing propositions commercially were entitled to the advantage of the


mortgagee's contribution. But the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich, who was then the Parliamentary Secretary, went out of his way to encourage speculators, financiers, investment companies and others to go in for this particular type of housing association. He said the Government were thinking more of applications from investment companies, from builders, from public utility societies and so forth, and that it was not intended that the provisions of the Act should apply only to the private individual. It was specifically hoped by the Government, the building societies, who at that time had large surplus funds to invest, by builders and by all concerned that these associations would be set up on the largest possible scale. The then Minister of Health hoped that 12,000 houses a year would be ereeted under this Act. These associations are mostly public utility associations, and are subject to very definite restrictions as to rents. They are not run as commercial propositions. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot refuse to give them the advantages which would be conferred upon them by providing that mortgagees should contribute towards the payments that will have to be made.
I have a considerable interest in building societies and I have done what I could to further their interests from time to time in this House. I believe that they would be willing to carry this obligation. They might not desire it, but if the right hon. Gentleman imposed it upon them they would carry it willingly, I am sure. It was largely the building societies in 1932 and 1933 who prevailed upon the Government to bring forward the Housing Acts, of the provisions of which I have already spoken. They had large surplus funds, and the demand for ordinary housebuilding for individual householders was falling off. It was their desire to set the building industry in motion. They derived great benefit from the encouragement which those Acts afforded. They have the very distinct honour at the moment of accepting responsibilities fairly and equally along with the borrowing individuals. Although the additional burden might be substantial I press upon my right hon. Friend and the Government to give these housing associations advantages in regard to contributions from mortgages which are now enjoyed by other sections of the community.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I would like to bring forward one small point in regard to the Amendment which might commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the general ground of excluding mortgages from contributions the House has been much swayed by the argument that there is a distinction between a commercial contract and a contract between lender and borrower where the transaction is for the purpose of assisting in the building of a house. In what respect does this category of house differ from the commercial contract? It differs because houses built by housing associations are much more in the category of houses built by building associations. It is not contended that the promoters of housing associations do not operate for profit, but their prospect of profit was increased by the fact that the Government guaranteed them loans enabling the housing association to borrow at a lower rate.
One would therefore think that if there were any party to whom the owners of housing associations should go for relief, in excess of the benefit which they have already received, it would be to the party who was interested in getting the houses built, which is the Government. Otherwise, the Government would not have given those guarantees. They should not go to the mortgagee because in this case the mortgagee is no longer looking to the house as his security. The mortgagee no longer has what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) described as an interest in the house. His interest is now in the guarantee. The original contract was, from his point of view, for the purpose of making a good investment. His security is now in the guarantee and not in the house. If any relief is to be sought at all by the proprietors of housing associations it should be from the Government which gave the guarantee.

Mr. Bellenger: I concede the point that has just been raised that housing associations are commercial undertakings. They are not entirely charitable organisations and I would not wish to put forward my case on that basis. They are, however, commercial undertakings of a particular nature, much of which is benevolent and part of which is for commercial reward. I have yet to hear that mortgages are not in the nature of commercial undertakings. Therefore we say, where there are two


commercial undertakings, one for a consideration of money lent at interest, and another to build houses for a special purpose, why not spread the burden equally and make the "equality of sacrifice" slogan something real? Many housing societies raise their money entirely by charitable appeals, but when there was a boom in property, the type of housing association referred to in this Amendment might just as well have built houses for owner-occupiers as many builders did. In the main, these housing associations did not put up houses to reap big capital rewards as was done by many builders in the days of the housing boom, but in order to meet the demand of the rent-paying tenants with limited incomes. Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought not to turn these associations down without deep and serious consideration.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of this matter upon a wider issue during the Committee stage, as if the case had not been proved. In fact, he told those who were moving the particular Amendment concerned that he could see no considerable evidence for a concession, even in this House, yet when the matter went to a Division the result was only 8 to 5 against the Movers of the Amendment. That ought to show the right hon. Gentleman that there is substantial opinion in this House on the matter. It there were no better illustration of how some of these housing associations have fared there is the fact mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), that some of these associations had come to him for advice yet had not been able to pay his costs. That fact may be due to other causes than those which we are advancing in this Debate, but it shows that some of the housing associations are not having too rosy a time when they cannot even pay the fees of their solicitor.
There is only one other argument I would put to my right hon. Friend and it is something in the nature of a personal one. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward the argument that solicitors have advised their clients to put money into mortgages and therefore he did not want to do anything which would affect the security of mortgages. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, at some time in his capacity as a solicitor, has advised his clients to put their money into mortgages, but let him clear his mind of

this argument. It is not a question of affecting the security of mortgages in which clients of solicitors have been advised to put money, but purely one of spreading the burden—and only that, so far as I am concerned. We ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to reject this Amendment.

Sir K. Wood: May I just make one or; two observations on the last matter which my hon. Friend mentioned, because I noticed that it was referred to in a circular which has been sent round to some Members of the House?

Mr. Bellenger: I have not seen that circular.

Sir K. Wood: What I stated, and what other hon. Friends of mine stated, was that one of the reasons against the contribution of mortgagees was not that certain professional people had advised other people what they should do, but because we thought that it would threaten the future of lending money on this particular class of property, often by small investors, and therefore would have a detrimental effect in the future. That was the only argument I endeavoured to make.
This particular Amendment is an endeavour—not a successful one, I may say—to limit the contribution which should be made by mortgagees to housing associations. I shall show in a minute that in fact this Amendment does not do so, but rather opens the door very wide indeed—but I will now deal with the matter on the basis on which my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has put it. It is no doubt perfectly true that at any rate a great number of these housing associations are doing very useful work, and that those who were associated with the idea of bringing housing associations into this kind of work have not regretted the attitude they took. It shows how we live and learn. My hon. Friend who is speaking to-day in support of their cause was, I think, among those who in times past bitterly opposed the housing associations' entry into this arena. They opposed it, as far as I remember—and probably from this point of view not on incorrect grounds—because in fact housing associations were not absolutely and precisely charitable organisations. My hon. Friend is not often in error—because he is always very careful in what he says


—but he was in error in stating that there was no question of any capital, or interest, or anything of that kind, in the working of these associations. For if he looks at the Housing Act itself, he will see that they are in fact permitted to have an interest or dividend, subject to the limitation that it shall not exceed a certain sum prescribed by the Treasury. That limitation was, of course, imposed because a guarantee was being given by the Government. It is not right to describe these housing associations as associations which are formed without any idea of profit or dividend at all. They are nothing of the kind. In fact, I may go further and say that this Amendment would include other associations, which are subject to no profit limits at all. While I am glad to have been associated with these associations, and with the work they are doing, I am anxious that we should not be under any misconception of exactly where they stand—and do not let us put them in the same category as charitable associations—to which they do not belong.
When my hon. Friends say I ought to make this distinction, because these housing associations are doing such good work, and are making or have made in the past such a contribution to the housing effort, that they should be allowed to be exceptions to the rule the House has laid down, I may equally reply that so have a large number of private builders made a considerable contribution to the housing effort. Immediately you say that, you admit a very wide exception to the rule that we have laid down, and open the door very, wide indeed. I do not know whether my hon. Friend intended it or not, or whether he was aware of it, but under his Amendment, any builder who operated under the 1933 Act would be able to come in and obtain the same advantage as my hon. Friend wishes to give to the housing associations. Whether he intended to do that I do not know.

Sir H. Webbe: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but may I draw his attention to the fact that I wanted to limit this to cases where mortgages have been the subject of a guarantee under a certain paragraph of the Act, thatis, a guarantee by the local authority? It certainly is news to me that there are any organisations in this country whose capital and borrowings are guaranteed by

a local authority or by the Government whose profits are completely unrestricted and outside any control by the State.

Sir K. Wood: I am glad to hear what was my hon. Friend's intention, but that is what I am advised. Indeed, I thought at first that this Amendment was designed to bring in other people besides the housing associations. There is, for instance, a large firm, which has circularised Members of the House pointing out the difficulties they are now in; and, as I understood this Amendment, it would not only cover the housing associations, but other people as well. At any rate, that is what I am advised; and it seems pretty clear that this Amendment would operate much more widely than my hon. Friend anticipated, or, as I now understood, much more widely than he intended. Several of my hon. Friends who have spoken have welcomed the Amendment just because in fact it goes further than to cover simply the housing associations themselves; just because it will bring in other people as well. Having said that, I am bound to say that I cannot advise the House, simply because associations of this kind have done good work—as indeed many others have done in housing—to make an exception to the general principle which we laid down on the Second Reading of the original Bill, which was confirmed in the Committee Stage of the original Bill, and was confirmed again only last week when this subject was discussed in Committee.
Moreover, when we consider the difficulties of the housing associations at the present time, I should expect—as I daresay many of my hon. Friends who have heard this Debate would expect—that a good many of these difficulties are not solely, and may be not mainly, due to the matter of this Bill. I have studied the effect of the war, as it is my duty to do, upon various companies and people who are associated with property, and there are a number of other factors which affect their financial position. I regret that this contribution, this additional factor, has borne very hardly upon them, and I have said and say again to my hon. Friends that, in cases in which difficulty is experienced, it is the practice—thoroughly and properly carried out, I believe—of the Inland Revenue Department to give the greatest consideration where the person charged is unable, out of income or other resources, to meet the liability as it falls due. In those cases


we have to be reasonable, and the Department is prepared, on being furnished with the facts of the particular case, to consider any proposals for the extension of the time of payment in order to relieve the people who are experiencing difficulties at present, and I would invite those concerned to consider that statement of mine. But I cannot begin to open this door. Under this Amendment it would not be confined to the associations concerned; it would extend to any builder who might have built under the Act of 1933, and my hon. Friends will see that directly I open the door as widely as that, we are departing from the principle, rough and ready as it-was, but at any rate giving the best measure of justice We could—admittedly creating cases of difficulty m some instances—and affirmed by the House on several occasions. I would ask my hon. Friends not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Spens: The remarks which my right hon. Friend has just made will be encouraging, I think, to those of us who are very much concerned with the situation which is arising in connection with certain of these estates. He is quite right in saying, that it is not only the obligation to pay the war insurance premium which is causing the trouble. The trouble is that a great number of the houses on these estates are empty at the present time, rents are not coming in, and the finances of these companies are very largely dependent on the money they have borrowed. They have very limited capital resources. They can neither keep their property in decent current running repair, nor can they pay their war damage premiums. It is true that the Inland Revenue is indeed tender-hearted to those who can make a good case, but the Chancellor used some such words as "where there is no income or capital resources." Income available to pay the war damage premium is not available to pay for running and current repairs to these properties.
I ask him somehow or other to look at the physical side of a great number of these working-class properties at the present time. I am glad that the Minister of Health is here. The situation is deteriorating rapidly month by month, and in my view, I would press upon my right hon. Friend, something has to be done to prevent that situation continuing.

I share my right hon. Friend's views that the person to be called upon is not the mortgagee. I emphatically share his views as to the advantage to property owners and others of keeping mortgagees free from this sort of calls. I feel that this Amendment is before us simply because there was no other party to whom recourse could be had. Underlying this Amendment is a great potential national evil unless something is done, and done quickly, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that what he has said will be carried into effect in some form or other very shortly.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I understood the Chancellor to say that any of these associations could only pay any dividend by agreement with himself. So that the House may have some idea of their financial position, could the Chancellor say how many associations have applied to him to pay a dividend?

Sir K. Wood: If my hon. Friend puts down a Question, I will endeavour to answer it.

Sir H. Webbe: As the mover of this Amendment, may I say that if my right hon. Friend would be prepared to indicate that he will endeavour to find a form of words which will limit the Amendment to what was my clearly expressed intention, I shall be glad, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree, to withdraw this Amendment? But if we can have no assistance of that kind, I feel it my duty to my hon. Friends to press the Amendment to a Division.

Earl Winterton: I am very much interested in this from a personal point of view, and I would like to support the attitude which the Chancellor has taken up and to point out to my hon. Friend that every differentiation that is made, every divagation that is made, from the main principle makes it harder to carry out the principles of the Bill. It is all very well to ask for benefits for particular sections, but I say that if benefits are to be given there must be benefits all round.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 98.

Division No. 14.]
AYES.



Barnes, A. J.
Harvey, T. E.
Sloan, A.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Bevan, A.
James, Wing-Comdr. A. W. H.
Sorensen, R. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Southby, Comd. Sir A. R. J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Stephen, C.


Bowles, F. G
McGovern, J.
Stokes, R. R.


Butcher, Lieut. H. W.
Mack, J. D.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Chater, D.
Maxton, J.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Cove, W. G.
Montague, F.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Roberts, W.



Gallacher, W.
Selley, H. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Shakespeare, Sir G. H.
Sir Harold Webbe and Mr. Bellenger.


Groves, T. E.
Shinwell, E.



Hardie, Agnes
Silverman, S. S.





NOES.


Albery, Sir Irving
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N. E.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Beattie, F.
Hopkinson, A.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Beechman, N. A.
Jagger, J.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.
Jennings, R.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Blair, Sir R.
John, W.
Smithers, Sir W.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g &amp; C'km'n)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spens, W. P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Storey, S.


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood)
Sutcliffe, H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cary, R. A.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thorne, W.


Colegate, W. A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Touche, G. C.


Colman, N. C. D.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tufnell, Lieut. -Comdr. R. L.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Viant, S. P.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford
McNeil, H.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Martin, J. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Culverwell, C. T.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Denville, Alfred
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Watson, W. McL.


Digby, Capt. K. S. D. W.
Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)
Wells, Sir S. Richard


Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
Molson, Capt. A. H. E.
Westwood, J.


Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Ede, J. C.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Petherick, Major M.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Etherton, Flight-Lieut. Ralph
Peto, Major B. A. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Foot, D. M.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwich, W.)


Gates, Major E. E.
Pym, L. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.



Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haslam, Henry
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Mr. Boulton and Mr. J. P. L.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Thomas,

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I beg to move, in page 21, line 32, to leave out "rateable," and to insert "contributory."

This Amendment affects the Scottish application Section, and was originally put down by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd). We considered the matter, and decided to adopt the Amendment. I can explain the point very shortly. In the original Act there was provision whereby in Scotland blocks of flats—tenements, as we call them—were treated as single contributory properties, if the rateable value of each flat was less than £35. When a similar provision came to be incorporated for England, the figure taken was a contributory value of £35. In Scotland there

is a very considerable difference between the rateable and the contributory value. In order that the incidence of the Act should be approximately the same on both sides of the Border, it was decided that contributory value should be substituted for rateable value in Scotland.

Major Lloyd: I appreciate the action of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and of the Government, in bringing forward an Amendment which I originally moved in Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend has explained briefly the object of the Amendment. I have a feeling, which I suspect he shares, that if the Parliamentary draftsman had realised that there was a statutory difference between rateable value and contributory


value in Scotland, the matter might have been dealt with before. The Scottish system, however, is not generally appreciated in England. I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for his understanding of the position, and to the Government for having adopted my Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[King's Consent signified.]

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I have no wish to detain the House at any length, but I think a few words ought to be said on this Stage. So far as the limited character of the Bill goes, it is an improvement on the existing law, and I am very glad it has been brought in. The Third Reading has the blessing of myself and of those associated with me. Some of us are rather sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see his way to make certain Amendments that commended themselves to a considerable number of Members. He took the view that the main principles of the Act were, if not sacrosanct, at any rate immovable this year. The fact is that we did not know how long the war will last, that the Act was passed in a very great hurry, and that we were all under the impression that an opportunity would be provided later in that year for Amendments if defects showed themselves. It was partly under that impression that we passed the Bill— although I would not like to fail to put it on record that in some respects, certainly in the later parts of the Act, the Government did meet a great deal of the criticisms of the House of Commons. Nevertheless, the Government have taken the view that they were not prepared to alter the main part of the structure, certainly of Part I, of the Act. Some of us regret that, but, in view of the decision of the Government, we have not felt justified in opposing their wishes on the matter.
Having said that on the larger issues of the Bill, I want to refer to one small matter, which came to my notice only to-day, and on which, therefore, I have not had the opportunity of putting down any Amendments. In fact, I do not know how far the law is what my correspondent represents it to be. But it is a matter of some small importance for certain

people. I propose to read a few passages from this letter, and then to make one or two short comments. My correspondent says:
When our Trustee Savings Bank here was destroyed, in February of 1941, I lost the deeds of my six-roomed house, together with my life insurance policy, which has not been replaced owing to the cost involved in lawyers fees, stamp duties, etc. Last June I paid my first compulsory contribution towards our national war damage insurance, which I am informed does not cover the loss of one's, house deeds and life policy. This I contend is most unreasonable and unfair to the contributors. To accentuate matters, the insurance company insist that, although the loss of my policy was through no fault of my own, I must pay the stamp duty of a new policy and the company reserves the right to ask for an indemnity from the person who receives the policy money, adding that, although the loss of the policy may appear certain, it may have escaped destruction and got into the hands of a third person, hence the indemnity.
I should point out that the Post Office Department of the State have readily issued new life insurance policies and new certificates of War Stock free of cost to their holders, and, if they have done that, why not in these cases.
Whether the insurance company insists upon an indemnification has nothing to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would like to ask him whether it is the law that no account is taken of the value of the actual deeds or of fire insurance policies when the War Damage Commission are assessing the compensation due to any individual. In the case that this man describes, it is not his own house that has been destroyed; it is the bank where his deeds and his policy were placed. If my correspondent is entirely wrong—and, as I say, I only received the letter this morning and have not had time to verify the facts, as I should have done if I had the time—and the War Damage Commission do indemnify, then the whole case falls to the ground. But if he is right, it does not seem to me to matter whether a man had deeds in his own house which had been destroyed or whether he had put them in a place that would be considered safer than his own private house, at least from burglary and fire. If he is right and in certain cases there is no compensation for that, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the matter looked into to see whether the point cannot be met. It is an aggravation of the action of the Government if it be true that not only is the man not compensated at all for the loss of his deeds, but


that the Government take a further contribution from him in the shape of stamps on his policy and his deeds. I ask, therefore, that the point may be cleared up either by saying that the facts are not as this correspondent states them to be, or, if they are, that the matter will be taken into account with a view to some remedy being found. I have no other remarks to make of a general character with regard to the Third Reading of this Bill, to which I give my entire support.

Earl Winterton: I should like to support what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Bill and as one, as was indicated by my Amendment on the Report stage, who has had considerable experience of matters affected by the Bill, to thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing in this necessary amending Bill in order to round off certain corners that were discovered in the Act. I would take the opportunity of paying a tribute—one which, I am sure, will be very cordially received by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health—to the local authorities for the most valuable assistance they have given in many directions under the scheme for first-aid repairs and cost of works. The result of their action, working under the machinery of the Bill, has been to make available for the wage-earning population in various parts of the country houses on a very large scale which would not hitherto have been available. The Bill and the principal Act are a very good illustration of the excellent war-time method of the co-ordination of public and private resources under the aegis of the Government. I think I shall be speaking for every Member in this House, however much hon. Members may differ from the right hon. Gentleman on particular points, when I say that we are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has conducted this Bill as we were for the way in which he conducted the proceedings on the principal Act.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am indebted to both my right hon. Friends for their observations, and I would like to say once again, on this Bill, which has been a very complicated and difficult Bill, how much I am personally indebted to the Financial Secretary and the Attorney-General for

all the help they have given me. It is obvious that I could not have surmounted the difficulties of the Bill without their help.
It can be said that the preparation of the Bill, like that of the previous Act of Parliament upon which this Bill is founded, has involved some difficulty, and even a certain amount of perplexity. I suggest to the House that these two measures, while not containing everything that every hon. Member would have desired to have seen in the Bill, provide when taken together a solid and well-devised foundation upon which we can deal with the damage that our fellow countrymen have sustained, and continue to sustain, to their buildings and goods at the hands of the enemy.
I would, in asking the House to take leave of this Bill, emphasise that this Measure does in fact contain a real and substantial benefit to the contributors. It will be remembered that their present contributions were originally imposed in respect of damage occurring before 31st August, 1941, and that the prospect of additional contributions for damage done in the current and in future years certainly lay before them. By extending the risk period indefinitely, without making any immediate addition either to the amount or the number of instalments of contributions, we have been able to ease their minds considerably. I was very glad on the Committee stage also to be able to make one or two other concessions, which were designed to meet cases where the contribution provisions of the original Act threatened to operate harshly.
A further question was put to me to which I undertook to reply on the Third Reading, namely, whether the payments of contributions were greatly in arrears. I endeavoured to show in my speech on the Second Reading that this was not so, when I said that of the assessments for the first instalment, which amounted in all to a little more than £40,000,000, about £35,000,000 had already been collected. I am glad to say now that the figure is £36,000,000. My hon. Friends will appreciate that the collection of part of the balance remaining will be deferred by reason of the provisions for deferment of collection in certain circumstances, as for instance, where a value payment is likely. I suggest that the burden of the contribution


has been accepted and shouldered by those upon whom it has been placed; and that it is now recognised as a reasonable price to pay for the benefit which these Measures provide.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) pay a tribute to local authorities. Undoubtedly, they have done magnificent work. A great deal has fallen on their officers. I am sure everyone is greatly indebted to them. I would like also to say a word or so about another body of people who have been helping us, and of whom little criticism has been made in the course of our Debates on this Bill, namely, the War Damage Commission. We have shown that we are prepared to trust the Commission with even wider and more important discretion than appeared in the original Bill. I would like the House to feel about the Commission that they are not there at the instance of my particular Department, or of any other Department. They hold a semi-judicial position, and it is their business—as I am sure they recognise and appreciate—to hold the right balance between public and private interest. Up to the present their duties have been largely confined to the day-to-day work of passing for payment a number of claims, most of them small, for temporary or partial repairs. This has been a big task, but I am glad to tell the House to-day that the dead weight of arrears has been largely overtaken. Even so, the checking of claims must take an appreciable time, particularly if the claims have not been properly documented.
I am also glad to say that only some 2 per cent. of the total number of payable but unpaid claims have been in the Commission's office for more than three weeks without any work having been done on them. This small number is confined to one or two offices, and for special reasons. No one can say how long this satisfactory position will continue, but I think we can rely on the Commission working just as vigorously and ably as they have done in the past, whatever amount of work may have to be faced.

Sir Percy Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend tell us how much of the £36,000,000 has been paid out for first-aid repairs?

Sir K. Wood: I made a statement on the Second Reading, a copy of which I

will send to my hon. Friend. I would now like to mention the Christian Churches War Damage Committee, which sits under the chairmanship of the Bishop of London. This Committee is composed of representatives of the various Christian denominations, and plays an important part in resolving, in consultation with the Commission, difficult problems arising out of Section 39 of the original Act, which, in effect, leaves to the Commission full discretion as to the nature of payments to be made in respect of war damage to properties held and used for charitable or ecclesiastical purposes. I would like to say how much the Commission appreciates the helpful spirit which has been shown by the Bishop of London's Committee, and how, by the close association between that Committee and the War Damage Commission, a good many of the difficulties which must naturally arise from the Measure of this kind have been overcome. I hope and believe that that relationship will continue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) referred just now to the case of a correspondent who had lost his trust deeds. I will make further inquiries, but on the question whether deeds lost are covered it is stated clearly in the first War Damage Act, 1941, that the term "goods" does not include:
money, negotiable instruments, securities for money, evidence of title to any property or right or of the discharge of any obligation, or any documents owned for the purpose of a business.
At the beginning of this legislation we had to continue our obligations under this Bill to property and goods, as defined in the Measure. What I will make inquiry about is the suggestion, made in the letter which he read to the House, that if these deeds were lost Stamp Duties in respect of them—in the event of further evidence being required as to title—should not again be imposed. As I understand it, if you take a matter of this kind to the court and are able to furnish satisfactory evidence as to the originals, and how they were lost, by documents properly authenticated, that would be sufficient for the purposes of the court.

Earl Winterton: Has it not been agreed by the courts that a photostatic copy which is made and tested at the time is sufficient evidence of the existence of a deed destroyed by enemy action?

Sir K. Wood: That may be so in certain cases, but it seems that my right hon. Friend's correspondent did not have a copy made. What my Noble Friend has said is, I believe, true. In conclusion, I hope it may be possible to have a consolidated Measure to cover the principal Act and the Bill we are now passing. I think that would be extremely helpful to everybody who has to consider war damage to-day. I would like to thank the House again for the help which has been given to me and my colleagues. We have done good work on this Bill, which, I am sure, will confer great benefit on our fellow countrymen who have suffered as a result of enemy action.

Sir Robert Tasker: Would my right hon. Friend give the widest possible discretion to the War Damage Commission to determine between temporary and permanent repairs and between Part I and Part II of the Bill? They are all important to the victims of enemy action.

Sir K. Wood: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for raising further money for the development of the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems and the repayment to the Post Office Fund of moneys applied thereout for such development, it is expedient—

(i) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole thirty-five million pounds, as may be required for the purposes of such development or of such repayment.
(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer Bonds, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued or of repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued.
(iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities, or of the principal of and interest on any such Exchequer Bonds, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH0 [MONEY] BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [17TH JUNE].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1942.

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR.

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and, generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [17TH JUNE].

Resolution reported:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the, service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, the sum of £1,000,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Captain Crookshank.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-three;" presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 (PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 93).

Resolved,
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Assam on 25th December, 1941, a copy of which was presented to this House on 24th February."—[Mr. Amery.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS' PASSES (INSPECTION).

Mr. Cocks: On a point of Order, may I ask why the Government are not taking the Motion dealing with Members' Passes, because the Standing Order has been suspended, and there is plenty of time?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): We thought that hon. Members required plenty of time for consideration of this matter.

Orders of the Day — FARNBOROUGH HOSPITAL (MISS BROWNLOW).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Sir Waldron Smithers: One never knows how much time one may have to raise a matter on the Adjournment, but to-day, luckily, there is ample time, because the Business of the House has been concluded at an early hour. I wish to raise the very serious question of the dismissal of Miss Brownlow, the Matron of Farnborough Hospital. I wish to make it clear that I am raising this as a matter of principle, and not merely because of the dismissal of Miss Brownlow. We are fighting for freedom, democracy and liberty overseas, and we must be careful that we do not lose liberty and freedom on the home front. I do not wish to prejudge the case. Naturally, I have heard only one side. I wish to say, however, with emphasis, that there is a prima facie case for inquiry. What are the facts? Miss Brownlow is a lady of splendid character who has spent her whole life as a nurse, sister, and then as a matron in the service of public assistance hospitals, and has now been dismissed with three months' notice, and, as far as I can find out, has no chance of appeal or of an inquiry of any kind. The Minister of Health very kindly wrote me a letter, dated 4th June. He begins by saying:
I hope you will forgive a rather lengthy-reply.
I wish to quote to the House one or two sentences from this letter. The Minister states:

No stigma attaches to the person concerned. The appointment is terminated, not because of misconduct or failure to discharge the duties attaching to the post, but because the post has ceased to exist, or because its nature and duties have undergone a fundamental change. I have, therefore, had no alternative but to put the County Council in a position to dismiss Miss Brownlow.
I should like to draw attention to the interchange of powers between the Minister of Health and the County Council. Apparently the County Council has to appeal to the Minister for powers to dismiss Miss Brownlow, and in consequence it was arranged for the termination of appointment both of Miss Brownlow and the present superintendent matron, Miss lies. I would point out that Miss Brownlow was a matron of a public assistance hospital. Public assistance hospitals are staffed by people who come from the lower walks of life—elementary schoolgirls. When the war started and the blitz began, Guys Hospital was evacuated to three different hospitals—in Farnborough, Orpington and Pembury. As I understand the position, they tried to run Farnborough Hospital with two staffs and two matrons. Naturally, they failed. Miss I1es, the Guys Matron, was appointed in charge, and I understand she has now been relieved of her duties. The Minister goes on to say in his letter:
I have also offered to sanction the payment to her of a gratuity of £500, a step which is not usual in such cases, but which I regard as justifiable in this case in order to avoid any suggestion of ungenerous treatment.
I should like to ask what would be the position if one of the Minister's senior civil servants who had served him so well was given the sack, and it was stated there was no stigma attaching, and that it was not because of any misconduct or failure in the discharge of his duties, and he was given £500 to be kept quiet. What is Miss Brownlow's position now? She has been dismissed, and the mere fact that the Minister has authorised a payment of £500 proves that there is nothing against her character or efficiency. But she has been given three months' notice, and I am told that, because of this, she loses not only her salary but her pension rights.
The matter goes back to an old inquiry, of which the Minister is fully aware. Miss Brownlow was appointed to clear up what was alleged to be laxity of discipline in the hospital. She went there and cleared it up, and there was an inquiry because they


said she was too dictatorial in her methods. At that inquiry her attitude, conduct and character were completely vindicated. I suggest that it is because of that vindication, and something that came out in the evidence about the medical superintendent, that every effort has been made to get rid of her. I do not want to judge the question now, but I say, with all the emphasis at my command, that there is a prima facie case for an independent inquiry. What is the Minister's position? He cannot be judge and prosecutor in the case. He has given the necessary instructions for her dismissal, but, after all, he is the prosecutor in the case, and it is grossly unfair. A constituent of mine with a marvellous record, holding all the qualifications and having passed all the examinations that could be passed by a woman in her position, against whose character or efficiency the Minister says there is nothing, is peremptorily dismissed, and I demand an impartial inquiry, with an independent chairman, at which evidence can be taken on oath, so that Miss Brown-low shall have an opportunity of presenting her case personally or by counsel. That is in accordance with the traditions of the House, which, after all, fought for Magna Charta and for the rights and liberties of the subject. It is unthinkable that a woman of Miss Brownlow's character and efficiency can be peremptorily dismissed without a chance to defend herself. I ask the Minister to grant this inquiry and, if he is fair-minded about it, I am sure he will do so.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I confess that, as chairman of a hospital in Kent controlled by the London County Council—I believe it is one of London's largest hospitals—and having listened to the case the hon. Member has presented, I shall be baffled as to where injustice has at any time or anywhere been created. I am always fearful lest matrons, medical superintendents or others in charge of our hospital service should suffer injustice due to bias or jealousy—and there are petty jealousies of various kinds in hospital administration—or perhaps due to the management committees not understanding the problems associated with the everyday life of these institutions. As I understand the case, I believe that the matron is still the servant of Kent County Council and not of the Ministry of Health.

Sir W. Smitfaers: It is because of that that the Minister has had to give permission to the Kent County Council to give her the sack.

Mr. Walkden: Far be it from me to criticise the Kent County Council, for some of my best friends are members of it, and I have no doubt that as a local authority they are a very efficient body. I do not know how they deal with their labour problems. I know how the London County Council deal with theirs, and I would say that had this lady felt aggrieved or thought she had suffered injustice in any way, she had a right under the various codes of discipline to appeal to the proper authority, which is not this House. There is adequate machinery provided by the local government bodies, and I believe by the Kent County Council in particular. I do not wish to commend the trade union machinery, because I feel it is well to understand that in the administration of these institutions every servant of a local authority has a right to engage anyone to assist him in making his appeal to the board or committee appointed to inquire into his case. The hon. Member says that the lady has actually been given three months' notice and in addition £500.

Sir W. Smithers: She has been offered £500, but I understand she was advised not to accept it, because it was adding insult to injury.

Mr. Walkden: Nobody has ever insulted me with hush money of that kind. I have had the sack on many occasions, sometimes with less than 24 hours' notice, but it has never been with hush money never to quarrel with the employer. The hon. Member brings a case to the House and fails to explain whether the lady in question has exhausted all the machinery available to her through the local authority. Does she deny the right of her employer, which is the local authority, to sack her?

Sir W. Smithers: It is a very technical business. The position is that Farnborough Hospital was a public assistance hospital which came under the Kent County Council, but owing to the war Guys Hospital evacuated to it, and it became a grade I hospital under the administration of the Ministry of Health. It is because the Kent County Council have not still full control that the permission of


the Minister of Health has had to be obtained to give Miss Brownlow her dismissal.

Mr. Walkden: It is a remarkable coincidence that the hospital with which I am associated is also a branch of Guys Hospital, but I do not think the Minister of Health has ever said at any time what we should do with our matron if there were any complaints against her. Fortunately, we have a good matron and have never had to do so, but I have yet to learn that the Minister of Health has taken from us since the outbreak of war any power we had to say to our matron, "You must conform to certain codes of conduct and discipline and subscribe to our rules." I am very much concerned when I hear cases of this kind brought to this House. I do not wish to relate it to the Blatherwick case, because that is altogether different.

Sir W. Smithers: No, the same principle.

Mr. Walkden: It is not the same principle by any means. Colonel Blatherwick was the servant of the Minister, the servant of the Crown. In the case of the matron to whom my hon. Friend has referred I believe she still is, if she has not left, the servant of the Kent County Council. We have tried to advise workers whether in the mining industry, in textiles, the distributive trades, with which I am connected, in fact all workpeople, that if they have a grievance, if they feel their employer has done them an injustice, even if they have had an argument with the local Employment Exchange concerning unemployment benefit, they have the right to present their case to the proper tribunal which has been set up and the right to be accompanied by a representative of their organisation. I do not know whether the lady in question has utilised her opportunities in that way, whether she has asked for her case to be heard and for representations to be made by, say, the National Union of County Officers. If not, I suggest that she ought to have done so. I feel that the hon. Member for Chislehurst should, before the Minister replies, explain to this House that all the machinery available to a matron or any other person in the service of a county council has been used before the case is brought to this House. The hon. Member for Chislehurst has never made it

clear in any stage in the argument he has presented that all the channels of redress which are available to the persons in question have been exhausted, and I think that he is in duty bound to tell us just how she has tried to regulate whatever injustice she feels she has suffered.

Sir W. Smithers: This matter has been going on for a long time. We have tried our best to make representations. In answer to the hon. Member, I will quote again from the letter signed by the Minister himself:
In order to reduce to a minimum any personal hardship it may involve I have-arranged that Miss Brownlow should have three months' notice of termination of appointment, thus giving her ample opportunity to apply for a new appointment.
The Minister says there "I have arranged." Caesar having spoken, I therefore appeal to Caesar.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) is drawing a false inference frorn the phrasing. The Order lays it down quite plainly, in Article 157, that a senior Poor Law officer—and Miss Brownlow is a senior Poor Law officer—
shall continue to hold office until he dies-or resigns or retires on superannuation or is dismissed by the Council subject to the consent of the Minister, or until the Minister considers it desirable that his duties should cease.
That is the law as it stands. Of course, no one can object to my hon. Friend or any other Member raising an issue of this kind. It is the glory of this House that an individual can always have a grievance raised on the Floor of the House for public debate and for the consideration of the House. But, as the House will appreciate, this is not and never has been a very simple issue. It is of long standing. It is a very difficult case, but I want my hon. Friend and the House to understand that I have done my best, in letters to him, to make it clear that two distinct questions are involved. They must not be confused if the issue is to be properly-appreciated.
The first question is about the inquiry, which was referred to by my hon. Friend. That was held, not by me, but by my predecessor. The House will see that the case goes back farther than my immediate predecessor. In one respect it goes back to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lt.-Col. Elliot)


It is a long and complicated story. My predecessor did cause an inquiry to be held. That is the answer to my hon. Friend when he suggests that the case has, not been heard. The inquiry was held because the Kent County Council made an application for sanction for the dismissal of Miss Brownlow from the Farnborough public assistance institution. The second question was of her fitness, not for that post but for the position of matron of a very large casualty hospital under the Emergency Hospital Service, of which that institution is a part. Those are the two questions. The question of Miss Brown-low's dismissal from the public institution was settled by the inquiry which was held in the early part of 1939.

Mr. George Griffiths: Has she been out of work since?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will listen, he will get an answer to his question. I have done my best to prepare a connected story for the House in the interests of all concerned. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) has appreciated the point at once. The inquiry which was held resulted in the rejection by my predecessor of the application of the Kent County Council for sanction to her dismissal. That issue was settled, but the House will understand that this did not make the subsequent situation easier. That is only commonsense and human nature.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that, as a result of that inquiry, Miss Brownlow was completely vindicated?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me make my statement in my own way. I did not interfere with him when he was speaking. I want to make the position clear to hon. Members and all those who may read the OFFICIAL REPORT. We all understand that an inquiry of that kind, involving a clash of personalities and different points of view as to administration, may be an aggravation of symptoms which already existed. Otherwise, there would not be an inquiry. The fact was that Miss Brownlow's position at Farnborough Hospital had been a matter of some difficulty even before the outbreak of war. With the outbreak of war this institution was made, as other places have been, into an important casualty hospital. Its staff was reinforced to deal with an increased number of beds. The number

of beds was increased, as the House will see, from 650 to 1,100, making an entirely different undertaking in scope and in object.
Reports were received from the officers responsible for that sector of the Emergency Hospital Service—not from the Kent County Council, but from officers responsible to me for the working of the Emergency Hospital Service—that the administration of Farnborough Hospital was defective and that there was a danger of it breaking down if the casualty service were to be exposed to any serious pressure. The substance of these reports was that Miss Brownlow was not the person to be in charge of the nursing staff of such a large hospital, and contained suggestions that her deficiencies might be due to her having had no holiday for a long time, having lately undergone a severe nervous strain through the inquiry and working since then under conditions of great difficulty. So at the end of 1939 one of my predecessors, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove, directed the Kent County Council to appoint a superintendent matron to be matron of the enlarged institution—which included of course the smaller institution—to whom Miss Brownlow should act as assistant and to whose control she should be subject. The House will therefore see that she was treated with great consideration.

Sir W. Smithers: Would the Minister give the name of the lady appointed as head matron?

Mr. Brown: The appointment was made early in 1940, and in February of that year Miss Brownlow left the hospital on extended sick leave, I will not here go into the question as to whether or not it is easy to dovetail an organisation of this kind, but I will say that we have a number in the Emergency Hospital Scheme working extremely well and showing that there is nothing wrong with the basis or with the arrangements as such. The House of course will know that everything depends upon judgment upon the spot and upon temperament and character, and according to my information the arrangement under the superintendent matron to whom Miss Brownlow was to be assistant worked satisfactorily at first.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the name of the superintendent matron?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has already mentioned her name. At first the arrangements worked as an improvement; there was a better atmosphere, but after Miss Brownlow's return from sick leave difficulties and friction re-appeared in the administration. I myself was then Minister of Health, and I gave very full consideration to this very protracted trouble. I thought about the best means of bringing it to an end, and I had long correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. I went myself to Farnborough Hospital and met both the superintendent matron, Miss Iles, and Miss Brownlow on the spot and saw them together. I did everything I could to inform myself, so that I should make quite sure that I was aware of the facts and the atmosphere so as to form my own judgment of the personalities. I do not think the House will differ from me when I say that it is clear that Miss Brownlow is in no difficulty with regard to any bias from the Minister or because of any lack of information on the part of the Minister.
I saw them both, and I came to the conclusion after that that the joint arrangement made at the end of 1939 could not be continued without serious prejudice to the efficiency of the hospital and of the London casualty service, of Which the Farnborough Hospital formed an important part. Therefore, in June, 1941, I issued a direction the effect of which was to place Miss Brownlow on leave with pay until further notice or until she could take up further remunerative employment. I understand that Miss Brownlow then made more than one attempt to secure other employment, but, I regret, without success. The justification of this unusual arrangement, to which my hon. Friend has referred more than once in discussions with me, was this: While in my view Miss Brownlow was not fitted to act as matron of the enlarged hospital, and the attempt to secure joint working under a superintendent matron had proved unsuccessful, Miss Brownlow was still matron of the public assistance institution and she had not, as the inquiry proved, shown herself incapable of fulfilling that post satisfactorily.

Mr. E. Walkden: Is the institution side separately administered from the Emergency Medical Service?

Mr. Brown: Oh no, and that increases the complications. If there had been two

separate institutions, the issue might or might not have arisen; I cannot say. But in July, 1941, the position was modified because the Kent County Council appropriated the Farnborough Hospital as a hospital under the Public Health Act, 1936, which altered the whole basis. The hospital thereby ceased to be a public assistance institution. Early this year the Kent County Council approached me and explained that their intention in appropriating the hospital was that it should, after the war, be used as a major general hospital designed to hold a key position in the public health service of the county, and they represented that the existing anomalous position of Miss Brownlow prevented the general revision of the administration of the hospital which this permanent change in its function rendered necessary, and they asked my help, as Minister of Health, in securing a settlement of this persistent difficulty. I agreed with the County Council's proposals for the future use of this hospital, and informed them that, since the hospital was no longer a public assistance institution and would not revert to that status, it followed that the duties of the officers of the institution under the Public Assistance Order, 1930, had come to an end. I added that in the circumstances I considered that Miss Brownlow's duties as matron of the institution should come to an end. The County Council concurred in this suggestion, and towards the end of April I issued a direction that the County Council should take the necessary steps to terminate the employment of Miss Brownlow on 1st August next.
I have given this detailed account of this case, in order that the House may appreciate the points that seemed to me essential to its consideration. The first is that the termination of Miss Brownlow's appointment was in no way connected with the inquiry held in 1939, except in so far as the strain of that inquiry may have made difficulties afterwards in terms of temperament, and may have reduced Miss Brownlow's efficiency in the larger organisation, and certainly made it more difficult for all concerned to cope with the difficulties which arose from the enlargement and change of function of the Farnborough institution. The issues raised by the Kent County Council concerned Miss Brownlow's work as matron of a public assistance institution, and these


issues were disposed of by the inquiry. The subsequent difficulties concerned the administration of a hospital of the London casualty service and were brought to my notice, not by the Kent County Council, but by my own officers, officers of the Emergency Hospital Service; and I should have been failing in my duty, when I realised that the efficiency of the Service was at stake, if I had not taken steps to secure the efficient working of this important key hospital.
The next point is that I and my predecessors have tried more than one expedient to end this difficulty with the minimum of hardship to Miss Brownlow, and it is a little difficult, after that, to listen to one or two of the sentences spoken about the proposed gratuity, which is legal under the Local Government Act. The only other point is that a settlement of the trouble has been made possible by the fact that Miss Brownlow's original post ceased to exist with the appropriation of the Farnborough Hospital under the Public Health Act, 1936. Her fitness for that post has not been questioned since the inquiry of 1939. The fact is that she has not been selected as matron of the enlarged casualty hospital or of the general hospital which it is projected it will be when the war is over.

Sir W. Smithers: The Minister said, if I quote him correctly, that the present position is in no way connected with the 1939 inquiry. I venture to suggest that there is still a great connection, and that that is one reason for a fresh inquiry. If Miss Brownlow is not fit to be matron of this big hospital, is it not the case that a successor was appointed—by whose recommendation I do not know—who has been found to be inefficient, and is now dismissed, and that there is an advertisement out for a new matron?

Mr. Ridley: I have a mild interest in this matter, but it can be put no higher than that. Miss Brownlow is obviously a woman of considerable attainments, but of considerable temperament. Whatever my views about the merits of the case, the Minister is to be thanked for the very great trouble he has taken to ascertain the facts for himself. I in no sense desire to engage in any criticism in connection with this very involved case, but I would ask whether the Minister

appreciates, as I think he will, that dismissal, even on these generous terms, may leave a serious mark on the future career of a woman who is now not a juvenile, and whether he will be willing—he may already have done so—to provide whatever assistance he can to help her to find employment within what he regards as the range of her accomplishments?

Mr. Brown: I would do all I could to help her to find a post for which I thought her suitable. That is why I have taken infinite pains to safeguard her interests. The position is not, as my hon. Friend seems to think, that we have a "down" on her; but we must have the right people in key positions.

Mr. E. Walkden: In view of the number of advertisements appearing in recent months, has my right hon. Friend no influence whatever to help the lady to secure a position, if not in her own area in some other part of the country?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will understand that there are two sides to that.

Mr. George Griffiths: I have listened with great interest to this discussion, especially as it was originated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers), who is always interested in the bottom dog. But there is one thing that I cannot under stand. I know of fellows getting dismissed practically every week, and they do not get £500, nor do they get three months' notice. If what is said about this lady is true—that she cannot do the job—then let somebody else do the job. There is no need to plead that the Minister shall get a job for her. If she possesses the ability that the hon. Member for Chislehurst claims for her, many local authorities will jump at the chance of employing her. I do not always agree with the Minister of Health, but I believe that he has put the case as fairly as it is possible for anyone to put it. I may be coming next week, or the week after, to the Lord Privy Seal because some of my chaps do not get three months' notice. They get about 24 hours. Only the other day 700 people were sacked from munitions work in Wallasey, because work could not be found for them. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes) is sitting here—

Mr. Reakes: It is news to me.

Mr. Griffiths: It was just at the top side of Wallasey. They were stopped all at once, not because they could not do the job, but because the production could not be got out—there were too many people around, and they were falling over one another. I believe that these people got a week's wages, and then they could please themselves where they went. I am delighted that the Minister has given the full facts of this case. I hope that the hon. Member for Chislehurst will be satisfied, and that he will say no more about it.

Sir Joseph Lamb: As the chairman of a hospital myself, I think that, after the statement of the Minister, the House would be wise, in the interests of the lady herself, to let the matter drop. A request has been made to the Minister to do all he can to obtain employment for this lady. It is very much better to leave the Minister to use his own discretion privately and to make no further public observations in this House upon a case, which, I think, has been dealt with very reasonably.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.